© Eit Gaastra, Groningen, The Netherlands
Last update February 1 2008
Welcome to my website. You can find the following on it.
1-1 Bottomlines
1-2 Tired light redshift
2-1 Ether theory
2-2 Confirmations
3-1 Interference experiments
3-2 Pushing gravity
4-1 The infinite Universe
4-2 Cosmic background radiation
4-3 Galaxy formation 1
4-4 Galaxy formation 2
5-1 Origin of AGNs
5-2 Radio loud AGNs
5-3 Chains of AGNs
5-4 Redshifts of AGNs
6-1 Pulsars
6-2 White dwarfs
7-1 Star formation and planets
7-2 Binary planets
Part 1 (chapters 1-1 and 1-2) presents a connection between physics, astronomy, philosophy, psychology and evolution biology. The redshift of far away galaxies is explained with a tired light hypothesis.
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. We use logic in order to make our (pleasant) feelings in their integrated form as large as possible.
Thus 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 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.
Thus 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 of existence and between existence and ending of existence.
If so then everything that exists (also an atom, neutrino or photon) lives, or: everything that exists has feelings.
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.
Particles have been observed to come out of nothing, exist for a while, and vanish again6. The meaning of the particle's existence (= life) may have been: the particle's experience of its existence, or: its feelings.
The basic postulate from which all my ideas unroll is: Everything that exists wants the biggest amount of pleasant feelings. (That goes for U2 website reader.)
[May 2003: This means, as I have written in a philosophical/cosmological article in Oct '94 (in the Dutch philosophy magazine Filosofie), that the meaning of life is: (pleasant) feelings. Also the meaning of our lifes and life in general (animals, plants, bacteria, but also non-biological “life” like a hydrogen molecule or a photon) is: feelings. End May 2003]
What are feelings? Experience of existence.
But the deepest way of understanding feelings is, of course: just feel it.
Feelings are based on the fight against finity. Feeling good is successfully fighting against finity.
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 existence gives pleasant feelings and everything that reduces existence gives unpleasant feelings.
How could primitive entities develop themselves into humans? Possibly 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 (may have) started from a subatomic level forming respectively atoms, amino acids, proteins and cellular life. I think this may have happened because entities wanted as much pleasant feelings/interactions as possible.
Thus smaller particles (entities) may have started to co-operate in order to become more complex entities, which made them 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.
[April 2004: Things may be different when you have (DNA) organisms that can travel by (for instance) meteorites or planets through interstellar/intergalactic space and thus go to other places (within a galaxy or within a cluster of galaxies or within the universe). If such organisms only need atoms as basic nutrients (and no amino acids) then you'll have a different story, then (DNA) life may have been around in the Universe for ever. Of course, then you have to answer the question: “How did (DNA) life ever come to existence?” But this can be the same question as: “How did the (infinite) Universe ever start?” Thus, the Universe and (DNA) life both may be infinite. End April 2004]
[January 19 2006: Scientists have found that hardy bacteria can survive a trip into space, and now the list of natural astronauts includes lichen. Lichens are not actually single organisms but an association of millions of algal cells, which cooperate in the process of photosynthesis and are held in a fungal mesh. The algal cells and the fungus have a symbiotic relationship, with the algal cells providing the fungus with food and the fungus providing the alga with a suitable living environment for growth379.
If you have a planet with life as on Earth somewhere that is hit by another large cold object then rocks of the objects may blow off into space. If DNA life like alga can survive a large trip in space then this may mean that no amino acids are needed to be produced by evolution. Then life on Earth may have come to existence by a meteorite with suitable DNA life. Within our evolution theories the development of the first cells is a big problem. It is extremely hard to see how such an extremely complex mechanism as a single cell can come to existence from amino acids only, let alone single atoms and (small inorganic) molecules. With DNA life travelling through space DNA life may be infinite in an infinite universe. It may mean that DNA life as on our planet may be common all through the universe like the atoms and molecules like oxygen and nitrogen are common all through the universe. It may also mean that people as on Earth, descending from such DNA organisms, may be common all through the Universe.
Evolution of DNA life is a severe problem for the big bang model. How can DNA life as we now it on Earth come to existence within only 13 billion years in a big bang universe? The evolutionary gap is easily fixed with DNA life being infinite (as a “kind”) in an infinite universe like atoms (of course I don't mean to say here that individual atoms are infinite). End January 19 2006]
[September 10 2005: Infrared and radio telescope observations of molecular clouds (in outer space) have detected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) as well as fatty acids, simple sugars, faint amounts of the amino acid glycine, and over 100 other molecules, including water, carbon monoxide, ammonia, formaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide. Although PAHs aren't found in living cells, they can be converted into quinones, molecules that are involved in cellular energy processes. For instance, quinones play an essential role in photosynthesis, helping plants turn light into chemical energy. The molecular clouds have never been sampled directly (they're too far away), so to confirm what is occurring chemically in the clouds, a research team set up laboratory experiments to mimic the cloud conditions. In one experiment, a PAH/water mixture is vapor-deposited onto salt and then bombarded with ultraviolet (UV) radiation. This allows the researchers to observe how the basic PAH skeleton turns into quinones. Irradiating a frozen mixture of water, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and methanol (a precursor chemical to formaldehyde) generates the amino acids glycine, alanine and serine, the three most abundant amino acids in living systems. In another experiment a frozen mixture of water, methanol, ammonia and carbon monoxide was subjected to UV radiation. This combination yielded organic material that formed bubbles when immersed in water. These bubbles are reminiscent of cell membranes that enclose and concentrate the chemistry of life, separating it from the outside world363. End September 10 2005]
[October 25 2005: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) are found in every nook and cranny of our galaxy. While this is important to astronomers, it has been of little interest to astrobiologists, scientists who search for life beyond Earth. Normal PAHs aren't really important to biology. However, PAHs in space also carrying nitrogen in their structures changes everything. Polycyclic nitrogen-containing aromatic hydrocarbon (PANH) molecules were recently found to be common in space. Much of the chemistry of life, including DNA, requires organic molecules that contain nitrogen. Chlorophyll, the substance that enables photosynthesis in plants, is a good example of this class of compounds, called polycyclic aromatic nitrogen heterocycles, or PANHs374. End October 25 2005]
[January 23 2006: If you add hydrogen cyanide, acetylene and water together in a test tube and give them an appropriate surface on which to be concentrated and react, you'll get a slew of organic compounds including amino acids and a DNA purine base called adenine. Researchers spotted the organic, or carbon-containing, gases hydrogen cyanide and acetylene around a star called IRS 46. Organic gases such as those found around IRS 46 are found in our own solar system, in the atmospheres of the giant planets and Saturn's moon Titan, and on the icy surfaces of comets. They have also been seen around massive stars by the European Space Agency's Infrared Space Observatory, though these stars are thought to be less likely than sun-like stars to form life-bearing planets389. End January 23 2006]
[May 2003: Recently there have been discoveries concerning H3+, the “ATP of the cosmos”, that suggest that molecules like amino acids may have been formed in interstellar gas/dust clouds7. End May 2003]
[September 3 2007: Astronomers have found the largest negatively-charged molecule yet seen in space. The discovery of the third negatively-charged molecule in less than a year and the size of the latest anion will force a drastic revision of theoretical models of interstellar chemistry, the astronomers say. They also say that the discovery continues to add to the diversity and complexity that is already seen in the chemistry of interstellar space. It too adds to the number of paths available for making the complex organic molecules and other large molecular species that may be precursors to life in the clouds from which stars and planets form462.
Back in the 1960s, no one believed molecules could survive the harsh environment of space. Ultraviolet radiation supposedly reduced matter to atoms and atomic ions. Now scientists conclude that at least half of the gas in space between the stars within the 33-light-year inner galaxy is molecular464. End September 3 2007]
[January 30 2008: Astronomers have found the first indications of highly complex organic molecules in the disk of red dust surrounding a star known as HR 4796A, which is about 220 light years from Earth. The researchers found that the spectrum of visible and infrared light scattered by the star's dust disk looks very red, the color produced by large organic carbon molecules called tholins. Tholins do not form naturally on present-day Earth because oxygen in the atmosphere would quickly destroy them, but they are hypothesized to have existed on the primitive Earth billions of years ago and may have been precursors to the biomolecules that make up living organisms. Tholins have been detected elsewhere in the solar system, such as in comets and on Saturn's moon Titan, where they give the atmosphere a red tinge. This study is the first report of tholins outside the solar system472. End January 30 2008]
There may be necessity for a chemical evolution before a biological evolution can start, with a “driving force”, a certain “will” that makes atoms “want” and thus makes atoms connect with each other to form amino acids. Before a chemical evolution can start you need a chemical/physical/astrophysical evolution in order to make heavier elements out of hydrogen. And before such a chemical/physical/astrophysical evolution you need a physical/astrophysical evolution that produces hydrogen.
In all those evolutions the particles may “feel” in a certain way and thus may have a “will” to make certain connections that makes them feel better one way or the other. This “will”, or, what I call, desire for happiness may be the driving force behind survival of the fittest.
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 this may not be entirely true on a deeper kind of level, survival of the fittest may count for atoms too in a certain way).
Desire for happiness and survival of the fittest may be two sides of the same coin:
[May 2003: Good connections with other entities. With survival of the fittest it is important that (biological) living entities can connect very well with other biological entities, for instance: by eating other entities or working together with other entities.
For atoms this is different. Their co-operation may be done on a molecular level within, for example, an amino acid: different atoms co-operating and thus forming an amino acid. Why? Because they want to feel good and feeling good in this respect may mean: they feel good because if they co-operate with other atoms to form an amino acid they may survive longer as an atom than in the case they were not (chemically) bound with other atoms. So survival of the fittest of biological living entities and desire for happiness of atoms may both be: wanting to feel good by living longer and living longer is done by co-operation.
Feeling good/living longer in the case of atoms may mean living longer as an individual. Feeling good in the case of biological live may mean: living longer as a specie (by passing on genes). And there may be something beyond this: living longer/further as a planet. This is where thoughts and compassion with other species come in: not only our genes (as individuals or as specie) are important, all genes (on our planet) are important (which is something extremely relevant in our time). But there may also be something like: all genes in our galaxy or in a galaxy cluster (which may be something becoming relevant in the (extremely) far future). End May 2003]
[May 2003: I see now that desire for happiness and survival of the fittest are as good as the same. It is like: we want to live versus we don't want to die.
It is just that by thinking with desire for happiness and everything that exists wants the biggest amount of pleasant feelings I could, in a way, “understand” atoms that (may) need to co-operate in order to survive. Desire for happiness and survival of the fittest blend together in: the fight against finity.
The fight against finity has two components: feeling bad when the fight is unsuccessful
and feeling good when the fight is successful.
End May 2003]
Desire for happiness may also explain the appearance of particles out of nothing: because their existence gave them “joy”.
Desire for happiness may “exist” by itself, without (physically) existing. As a concept, as an idea, like logic exists without (physically) existing. The reason why something physically exists, may not be physical itself.
Also: time and space make it possible for us to exist, but time and space may not be physically real themselves (see chapter 2-1).
This raises the question whether feelings are physically 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 3-2. And: physical particles that appear to come out of nothing, may originate from smaller yet unknown particles, see chapter 3-2.
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 and photons (1-1). 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 may 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 may cost energy. Or: mass/energy burns to nothing. Or: mass/energy vanishes. This may be an exception to the conservation-of-energy principle (not necessarily, for there may always be smaller particles to be found, see also 3-2).
Perhaps everything that is, consists of mass, also photons and neutrinos. Perhaps we have to call every form of physical existence: mass (with a certain velocity and hence energy).
Perhaps everything that (physically) is, is mass (see also 2-1).
[August 2004: One of the biggest physics breakthroughs during the last decade is that neutrinos actually have a small amount of mass246. End August 2004]
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 [July 2004: or rather: real understanding = feeling it End July 2004], 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 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.
Also infinity concerning ever bigger superclusters (4-1) or ever bigger regions of space (5-4) nor infinity concerning ever smaller particles (3-1, 4-1) may be something that can never be understood completely (by definition).
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.
There are 3 sorts of redshift in today's conventional 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 Zwicky6: light loses energy progressively while travelling across large distances of extragalactic space [October 2003: (“energy loss” because of what Zwicky called gravitational drag75). William McMillan (4-1) may have been the first who suggested tired light75. End October 2003]
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.
[May 2003: Last year I noticed that many people have suggested the same tired light idea, i.e. light loses energy because of interaction with other (gravity/ether) entities in extragalactic space, see for example professor Assis2, professor Ghosh3, Dr. Van Flandern9 and various authors in Pushing Gravity5. End May 2003]
[October 2003: Also a mechanism like Compton scattering may be classified as a tired light concept75. Compton scattering is scattering of photons by particles (like electrons and protons) distributed in space, which are believed to result in energy loses and wavelengths that are redshifted in proportion to distance travelled. See also an article by Assis and Neves76 (next to Mitchell's book75) if you want to know more about the history and variety of tired light concepts. End October 2003]
[May 2004: Professor Wright rules out Compton shift as a tired light model option, because Compton shift (for instance by electrons) would change the momentum of a photon, which would lead to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed94. He may be right about this.
However, tired light caused by ether/gravity particles is something completely different.
Wright also argues that the tired light model does not predict the observed so-called time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves94. A supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. Big bang cosmologists consider this “time dilation” as strong evidence in favor of the big bang and against tired light models.
However, “time dilation” of high redshift supernova light curves can be seen as an ether confirmation (2-2).
Wright also argues that the tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the cosmic (microwave) background radiation (CBR), that the CBR must come from a distance less than 0.25 Mpc (i.e. closer than the Andromeda Galaxy M31) when it is caused by blackbody radiation and that the CBR can't be produced by stars94. He may be right on all three things.
However, when the CBR is caused by dark matter as argued in 4-2, then Wright's calculations and conclusions about the distance of the CBR source (i.e. if CBR is caused by blackbody radiation) may be a confirmation of my suggestion that dark matter in the halo of the Milky Way (and/or dark matter in the disk of our Milky Way) may cause the CBR. End May 2004]
We take a look again at the statement: mass/energy may vanish because its being, its existence (its feelings), may cost energy (1-2).
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.
So far this redshift is only philosophical. It has to have a physical reason too.
If a light wave leaves the Sun gravity (by the Sun) will increase its wavelength (gravitational redshift) and if the light wave falls on Earth gravity (by the Earth) will decrease its wavelength (gravitational blueshift).
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 will always be gravity forces working on the light.
There is gravitational red- and blueshift and so gravity does work on light and hence light works on gravity and therefore light may lose energy to gravity somehow while travelling large distances of extragalactic space.
Thus cosmological redshift can be explained in a physical way, for in intergalactic space there are gravity forces too.
Tired light redshift is a different redshift than gravitational redshift. It is caused because light needs a medium to propagate itself and by doing so it loses energy. 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 3-1.
[May 2004: It remains to be seen whether gravity or ether will take energy from photons on their journey through intergalactic space. It depends on what medium light needs to propagate itself (2-1). End May 2004]
[September 4 2006: In a book published in 1995, De zeven wegen der waanzin (The seven ways of madness, under the pseudonym Durk Wille, the book is not in print anymore because the publisher went broke), I wrote that if gravity causes tired light redshift then we may find that light passing through strong gravity fields redshifts stronger relative to light going through relatively weak gravity fields.
Big bang cosmologists explain CBR with a lower temperature coming from parts of the universe with higher density (i.e. the superclusters) with: the temperature is a little bit lower because the CBR had a little more trouble (energy taking) escaping the gravity of the areas with more matter.
The cosmic background radiation may have interacted with (relatively strong) gravity (within superclusters), which may be responsible for lowering the CBR temperature. This can be seen as a confirmation of the tired light by gravity hypothesis as well as a confirmation of the gravity is the ether hypothesis (2-2) and it may hint towards gravity particles concentrating themselves around matter (3-2). End September 4 2006]
(Perhaps high energy radiation can give energy to low energy radiation with gravity as an intermediate, thus originating cosmic background radiation, see 4-2.)
Tired light by gravity (particles) made me dug up an ether alternative for relativity (2-1). Because I once started to think about a reason for living (which led to Part 1 and the idea of gravity particles) I could look at physics and astronomy from a different point of view, which led to alternatives for today's conventional physics and astronomy (Parts 2,3,4,5,6 and 7).
Part 2 (chapters 2-1 and 2-2) presents the following hypothesis: Light is related to the gravity/ether 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 important to have read the first 2 chapters of professor J.A. Coleman's book Relativity for the Layman10 (first published in 1954, commented on and recommended 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. I think 1727 was the year of the Historical Mistake, which led us to the (inevitable?) special theory of relativity.
[May 2003: I know now that many others have suggested the same alternative for the theory of relativity: an ether theory.
If you want to check other peoples ether ideas I recommend Ronald Hatch4, he is a specialist on satellite navigation. Or check out the work by the physics professors Marmet11 and Selleri74.
Everybody agrees on:
[November 2003: Not only the observations concerning (the speed of) light need to be explained when Einstein's theory of relativity is to be replaced, also gravity and inertia need to be explained. This is done very well by Assis2 and Ghosh3. They bring back the old discussion between Newton with his absolute space and absolute time on one side and Leibniz on the other side saying that absolute space is meaningless and that forces can not act at a distance unless conveyed by a material medium. Assis and Ghosh favour Leibniz and his successors Berkeley and Mach (where Einstein's spacetime can be seen as a follow-up of Newton's absolute space). In essence there is no difference between an extended Leibniz/Berkeley/Mach concept2,3, an ether concept4,11,74 and a pushing gravity concept5 (3-2) in the sense that all concepts work with very small particles/waves conveying forces, thus explaining observations in a simple causal crystal-clear way without needing vague concepts like absolute space or spacetime.
The Indian Institute of Technology held an international conference about Mach's principle in India from February 6 to February 8, 2002321. End November 2003]
[December 2003: So far I found 3 different ways that lead to alternatives for the theory of relativity. One is finding an explanation for the apparent constancy of light, which leads to an ether theory (Hatch4, Marmet11, Selleri74 and this chapter of this website). Another way is finding an explanation for the famous bucket experiment by Newton without using Newton's absolute space (Assis2 and Ghosh3) and a third way is finding an explanation for gravity (Edwards5 and chapter 3-2). All 3 alternatives can be joined by embracing Leibniz/Mach in favour of Newton/Einstein, thus explaining ether/inertia/gravity as a product of (all or at least much, 4-2) mass in the universe, a product caused by minute particles (or waves). (Leibniz: “There is no such thing as absolute space, forces can not act at a distance unless conveyed by a material medium.” Mach: “There is no such thing as absolute space, inertia can be caused by all the matter in the universe.”) End December 2003]
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 (sometimes called aether).
The ether was the material that existed everywhere that light waves travelled, it filled the vast emptiness of the universe and was present in all substances in greater or lesser degree.
(See also chapter 3-2 where I describe gravity particles as possible building blocks of matter and how gravity particles may flow in and out of matter [May 2003: which is also thought up by others5 End May 2003].)
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 insecure10.
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) explained10.
(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 postulates10:
This is how professor Coleman presented the postulates in 1954. Today12 the 2 postulates are presented as:
1. All inertial observers are equivalent.
2. The velocity of light is the same in all inertial systems.
Today study books about the theory of relativity ignore the historical experiments and ways of thinking that have lead to the theory of relativity. Mathematicians have taken over relativity where physicists have turned themselves away from relativity because the mathematics have become to complicated. Science locked up itself by no longer seeing how things originally initiated.
[May 2003: If you want to know where things go wrong in the “official” Einstein–relativity–books like the one by professor D'Inverno12 then take a look at the very beginning (chapters 2.7 and 2.8) of D'Inverno's book and notice that the fabrication of the k–factor with space-time figures is wrong. End May 2003]
[October 2003: To be a little more specific: look at the space-time figures in D'Inverno's book and see that in those figures the velocity of light relative to different observers is not the same like the text suggests. End October 2003]
Here comes the idea that, once I had it in my head, led to the Parts 2 and 3 of this website.
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.
[May 2003: I know now that many others have thought up this gravity-ether concept. See for instance Hatch4 and various contributors in Pushing Gravity5. End May 2003]
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, length contraction and Lorentz transformation 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.
[May 2003: On this website I speak of gravity fields instead of gravitational potentials and I speak of gravity particles instead of gravitational fields or gravitons. It is just that I like the sounds of “gravity fields” and “gravity particles” better. End May 2003]
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.
[May 2003: I know now that this is something that has to be worked out in the future: how gravity forces from different mass objects (like the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, other stars, the center of the Galaxy, other galaxies, other clusters of galaxies, etc.) exactly “battle” with each other, thus bringing photons to certain velocities, is something that needs, of course, much more consideration for a good understanding.
From other websites, especially Ronald Hatch's website4 (but see also Marmet11), I learn that photons near the Earth adjust themselves to the velocity of the (gravity field of the) Earth in its orbit around the Sun but not to the Earth's rotation around its axis; photons further away from the Earth adjust themselves to the (gravity field of the) Sun (these are experimental facts measured by satellites and space probes4).
It remains to be seen if the dominance of the gravity field of the Earth is larger than the area bounded by the orbit of the Moon in the case of photons. A mass like a photon may have a very high density and therefore a photon may relate different to the Earth's gravity field than a mass like the Moon (I come back on this subject in 3-2).
Dr. James DeMeo's website13 about Miller's experiments points out that: the null result of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment may not be null at all. Dayton Miller did the same experiments for decades and got very different results. [September 9 2005: Or perhaps rather: he interpreted the results different. See a paper by Reginald Cahill358. End September 9 2005]
(DeMeo's website makes me suspect that science historians are going to bring some extremely nasty facts to the surface in the future. Perhaps some well respected scientists “failed” to add sufficient integrity to their behaviour in order to speed up their career.
Many people's careers depend on clinging to a false model. Showing serious doubt throws them into the camp of the unbelievers and that can make them loose their positions. Its kind of like the Catholic Church threatening Galileo. Actually, it's much worse, for this time the threat comes from within science itself.)
Whether gravity or another (smaller-than-gravity-particle) ether medium is needed by light to propagate itself is, of course, an open question, see for instance Van Flandern in Pushing Gravity5. (I come back on this subject in 3-1.) End May 2003]
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 speeds of the light waves may adjust themselves to the (speed of the) gravity field of the Earth. (In 3-2 you can find a reason why this may happen at Fig. 3-2-VI.)
Light wave A then decelerates with 30 km/s (= the speed of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun) in QA relative to an observer on Earth and it decelerates with 30 km/s 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 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, i.e. smaller towards the Sun; the area outside the dotted circle, where the light waves are drawn, is the gravity field of the Sun).
[May 2003: Whether or not light wave C too is dragged with the Earth is an open question. I think so and this needs an alternative explanation for stellar aberration, which you can find in 2-2. Other dissident scientists, like Hatch4, say: light wave C is not dragged with the Earth because we have such thing as stellar aberration.
Van Flandern5 writes that stellar aberration is entirely due to: 1. the finite speed of light, and 2. the much higher speed of gravity (like 1010 c). I have a different explanation for stellar aberration than Van Flandern, but I agree with him that the speed of gravity may be much faster than the speed of light, see 3-1. End May 2003]
Figure 2-1-II. Illustration of gravity is the ether by people walking over a moving plate.
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.
Of course: the Earth turns around its axis and so things are more complicated. Also: hence all objects move on bended paths (like our Earth around the Sun and our Sun in the Galaxy) the path of a light wave is bend for someone who is not in the same gravity field as the light wave.
In December 2001, 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. Gaasenbeek14 thought up electromagnetic frames of references (EFORS) to which photons adjust themselves.
[May 2003: I know now that tens or perhaps hundreds of people thought up photons–adjusting–to–Earth ideas.
You may wonder why in January 2002 (when I opened this website) I had only found three websites with alternative ideas: the photon-adjusting-to-Earth website by Gaasenbeek14 (2-1), Gelman's website on the subject of pushing gravity15 (3-2) and the website with Reber's infinite universe16 (4-1), where there are and were so many websites (and books) by dissidents to be found on the internet.
Friends of me found the websites. In May 2002 I bought a modern computer myself and from that moment I could go on the internet myself. End May 2003]
For a good understanding of 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, James 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 later10 (see Fig. 2-1-III).
Figure 2-1-III. Explanation of stellar aberration by Bradley (this picture has been taken from Coleman's book10)
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 today 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 travelled 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 (from A to C while the light goes from B to C).
If the Earth would have moved in the same direction as the light wave then it would have been as in Fig. 2-1-VII: while the light wave travelled 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 (from A to C while the light goes from B to C).
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 basically the same as what I explained with Fig. 2-1-VI and Fig. 2-1-VII).
This “18th and 19th century reasoning” has been taken from professor Coleman's book10:
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 book10).
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 book10)
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 and became even bigger when Michelson and Morley did their famous experiment in 1881. Michelson and Morley tried to end the confusion with experiments that had light running along the direction of the Earth (in its orbit around the Sun) and light running perpendicular to the direction of the Earth10. They found that light always ran over the surface of the Earth in a way that is totally independent from the direction of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun.
The Michelson-Morley experiment did not show that the velocity of light is always constant relative to an observer no matter the velocity of the observer. What the Michelson-Morley experiment showed was: the velocity of light on Earth (or rather: close to the Earth) is always constant relative to the Earth.
Some scientists came with the-Earth-dragging-the-light hypothesis10 in order to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, but this hypothesis was rejected because of James Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration.
In 1905 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 starting point 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. Observations that are explained with the theory of relativity can be explained with gravity is the ether too, see 2-2.
[May 2003: Unlike me Assis2 and Ghosh3 and many others4, 5, 11 have derived formula's with which they can calculate all experimental facts that “prove” relativity. Experimental facts like: gravitational redshift, advance of the perihelion of Mercury, bending of light, “time delay” of light, solar oblateness, etc. End May 2003]
Einstein used the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction10 (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.
The famous Michelson-Morley experiment10 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 relative to the Earth, which is easy to understand with photons dragged along with the Earth as well as air molecules because of the Earth's gravity.
[May 2003: Whether or not the Michelson-Morley results were (completely) correct is something that remains to be seen, see Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look13 by Dr. James DeMeo (2-2). End May 2003]
[February 2004: Miller began his work with Edward Morley, from 1902 to 1906, using an apparatus three times as sensitive as the original interferometer used by Michelson-Morley in 1887. In later years, from 1921 through 1928, Miller made additional refinements for sensitivity in his interferometer, obtaining increasingly significant results. His interferometer was the most massive and sensitive ever constructed. David Miller saw the results of his experiments as a confirmation of the existence of the ether (and as a disqualification of the theory of relativity)13. End February 2004]
[February 2004: A lot of scientists (see for instance satellite navigation expert Hatch4 or physics professor Selleri74) consider the so-called “Sagnac effect” to be a confirmation of the existence of the ether (and a disqualification of the theory of relativity). Several types of modern gyroscopes function by using the Sagnac effect to measure rotation. Georges Sagnac performed the original experiment in 1913. He split a light beam into two parts, which traveled around the circumference of an area in opposite directions. He found that the fringe shift was a function of the rotational velocity of the platform on which the experiment was performed. In other words, the speed of light relative to the rotating sensor was a function of whether the light beam traveled with or against the rotational velocity of the platform4. Georges Sagnac saw the results of his experiments as a confirmation of the existence of the ether (and as a disqualification of the theory of relativity)74. End February 2004]
[March 19 2005: Maurice Allais claims that pendulum experiments he has done point to the existence of the ether286. Chris Duif has concluded that the pendulum experiments by Maurice Allais can not be explained by General Relativity287. End March 19 2005]
Stellar aberration can be looked at as a confirmation too.
Stellar aberration was discovered by Bradley in 1727. The explanation of the phenomenon was done by Bradley too and this explanation has never changed10 (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.
[February 2004: The light than does go from B to A for an observer in the gravity field of the Earth (= us); but it goes from B to C for an observer in the gravity field of the Sun (perhaps not entirely, see also Fig. 2-2-III). End February 2004]
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 this 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 (FGrav. 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 3-1.)
Figure 2-2-II. A light wave may travel 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.
[March 25 2005: Of course, the crash in effect is the double drag effect. What I called crash in effect did not give any reason for stellar aberration. With double drag it is different. You may see it as the combination of two forces like: a raindrop falling down to Earth by gravity while being blown by the wind and so the path of the raindrop to the Earth is tilted. With a photon the path only gets tilted in the double drag area, but after the double drag area the photon follows its path in the new direction (within the gravity field of the Earth and without (or at least almost without) gravitational forces by the Sun), i.e. there does not have to be a force all the time as with a raindrop to keep the photonpath tilted. End March 25 2005]
[April 22 2005: The following concerning the above mentioned reasoning about stellar aberration may make the reasoning a bit easier to understand. Imagine two tables (tables 1 and 2) next to each other and seen from above. The tables are very long (see Fig. 2-2-II-a). Table 2 is moving from left to right while table 1 stands still. On table 1 a massive iron ball slowly rolls towards table 2. The moment the ball rolls from table 1 on table 2 there may be two forces working on the ball (imagine the line/boundary between the tables in Fig. 2-2-II-a to be, in a way, the double drag area of Fig. 2-2-II): table 1 still has an effect on the ball trying to keep the ball going in the same direction while table 2 tries to take the ball to the right.
Figure 2-2-II-a. Two tables, one moving to the right, one standing still, seen from above with an iron ball rolling over.
The end result may be that the ball changes its direction (as with stellar aberration of a photon) as shown in Fig. 2-2-II-b. And: the faster the speed of the moving table the bigger the aberration of the ball. I think a photon may change its direction because of two forces working on the photon in, what I call, a double drag area.
[May 20 2005: Though, there is also the inertial force of the rolling ball, as well as there must be a (inertial) force that makes a photon have its speed. So in the case of the iron ball there is an inertial force that makes the ball keep on going on in the same "track", while at the same time friction between table 2 and the ball makes the ball move more and more to the right. In the case of a photon entering the ether field of the Earth there may be a (inertial) force too that makes the photon hold to its original path for a while and then this (too) may explain stellar aberration. Also if a photon is not a particle but a wave in the ether then I think there is still a force that makes the photon/wave “wanting” (by an inertial force) to stay in the same track, while a force attached to the Earth makes the photon go to the right; I think then too the net effect of these two forces may be stellar aberration. End May 20 2005]
Figure 2-2-II-b. Two tables, one moving to the right, one standing still, seen from above with an iron ball rolling over.
How is the in Fig. 2-2-II mentioned force of the gravity field of the Sun to be seen? Perhaps as an inertial force. Imagine that a photon has to act according to Newton's first law (3-2). In that case the photon is “pushed” forward by an inertial force (by the gravity field of the Sun) in the double drag area; an inertial force caused by (many) smaller (gravity or other) particles than the photon (with the photon seen as a particle). The moment the photon enters the gravity field of the Earth as mentioned in Fig. 2-2-III it has to adapt itself to the gravity field of the Earth and it experiences a pull to the right by the Earth in Fig. 2-2-III for someone standing on the Sun (take notice that the stellar aberration effect has been left out in the figure below). But for someone standing on the Earth the photon experiences a pull to the left by the Sun, the photon changes its direction resulting in stellar aberration for someone on Earth as mentioned in Fig. 2-2-II. As mentioned below: it remains to be seen how much the aberration effect compensates the Earth-dragging-the-light effect, an observer on the Sun may see nothing happen to the photon, i.e. in the case that the stellar aberration effect compensates exactly the Earth-dragging-the-light effect then the observer on the Sun just sees no effect at all (of course you have to imagine that an observer on the Sun can observe the photon by smaller much-faster-than-light particles coming from the photon). And when the stellar aberration effect compensates exactly the Earth-dragging-the-light effect then for someone on Earth also nothing changes in Fig. 2-2-II when the person could see the photon from far away. (In a way Fig. 2-2-II is misleading. The dotted line from the drawn photon to FGravity Sun is the path of the photon seen by an observer on the Sun and the dotted line from FGravity Sun to the drawn telescope is the path of the photon seen by an observer on the Earth.)
An inertial force working on the photon may also explain the “30 km/s energy” of the Doppler effect mentioned in 2-2. End April 22 2005]
[May 23 2005: Thinking about inertial forces with respect to photons is a tricky thing. It is something that, of course, right now can only be guessed about. There may be gravity particles/waves that are used by photons to propagate itself (as a particle like a bullet, or as a wave in the ether like sound in the air or water). But there also may be a class smaller particles/waves or even another smaller class of particles/waves (or even another smaller... etc.) that make photons do/are what they do/are.
Though we can see them with our eyes the photon still is a big riddle. I think that final answers always deal with particles moving in certain ways, like a bullet going through space, or like water molecules with respect to soundwaves going through water or airmolecules producing sound in the air. Particles with different, more complicated, movement, for instance as mentioned in Fig. 3-I-1. Particles that are pushed by other (smaller inertial force producing) particles, which are pushed by even smaller (inertial force producing) particles, which are pushed by even smaller (inertial force producing) particles, which are pushed... etc. Like our universe may be infinite in space and time, there also may be infinity when it comes to ever smaller particles (which may be ever faster). End May 23 2005]
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 (dragging effect + stellar aberration) 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 (see Fig. 2-2-III and read its text). Thus the gravity field of the Moon may act like a lens (see Fig. 2-2-IVa).
Figure 2-2-IV. Fig. 2-2-IVa: When a star is occulted by the Moon the gravity field of the Moon may act as a lens for an observer on Earth (the stellar aberration effect is left out in IVa).
Fig. 2-2-IVb: The Moon-dragging-the-light plus the stellar aberration in the case the stellar aberration effect compensates exactly the Moon-dragging-the-light effect (and hence no lens effect for an observer on Earth in IVb).
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 out8. Thus angular diameters of large nearby stars can be measured, because waves from different parts of a star (with a certain angular diameter) produce a characteristic interference pattern8.
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 for an observer on Earth (i.e. if stellar aberration does not compensate the Moon-dragging the-light effect to the maximum degree as in Fig. 2-2-IVb).
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.
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).
From flux-measurements as in Fig. 2-2-Vb one may be able to say something too (next to the angular diameter of the star) about the magnitude 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 (by gravity) and dragging (by gravity/ether) as well.
[May 2003: So far I had an awkward feeling about the short time of the diffraction pattern in Fig. 2-2-V: only a few hundred meters above the Moon's surface the interference pattern starts. Perhaps the magnitude of the Moon's gravity field is much less than I expected as well as the magnitude of the Earth's gravity field may be much less then I expected, i.e. much less than the Earth's gravity field as described and pictured in 2-1. I have started thinking this way after I found out that:
So diffraction patterns of the Moon as shown in Fig. 2-2-V indeed (despite the “few hundred meters”) may reveal something about the gravity field of the Moon and thus about (properties of) gravity fields in general (when photons adjust their speed to the Earth very near the Earth).
In Fig. 2-2-V (the property of) a gravity field in relation to a photon is mentioned. The dominance-magnitude of a gravity field (i.e. a certain area around, for instance, the Moon), where the Moon has the “strongest grip” on a certain object (like a photon, atom or meteorite) may depend on the kind of object (photon, atom or meteorite) that one deals with, for the density of the object (photon, atom or meteorite) may be very important in this respect, see 3-2. End May 2003]
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 found10. 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 may do 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 may redshift in QB (and you can imagine that your 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 3-1.)
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: the 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 a certain way.
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 “observer”: the little box on the car that measures the speed of light).
But: the moment a light wave enters the little box on the car that measures the velocity of light the light wave may adjust 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. So it doesn't matter whether the box is moving or not, you always measure the same light velocity.
See 3-1 for more experimental (quantum mechanics linked) confirmations of the gravity-is-the-ether-hypothesis in the past (one of them: time differences measured with atom clocks moving at different speeds; another: time differences in radioactive decay of radioactive particles moving at different speeds; and: bending of starlight by the Sun).
See 7-1 for the precession of the perihelion of Mercury.
[May 2004: When ether particles take energy from photons on their journey through intergalactic space then the tired light model can be seen as a confirmation of an ether theory (1-2).
A supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. Big bang cosmologists consider this “time dilation” as strong evidence in favor of the big bang and against tired light models (1-2).
However, also “time dilation” of high redshift supernova light curves can be seen as an ether confirmation. When light needs ether particles to propagate itself like sound needs air molecules to propagate itself then not all photons sent out at a certain time will arrive on the same time on Earth billions of years later. Some will, by chance, arrive a little earlier and some will arrive a little later. When ether particles cause light waves to stretch and the same ether particles cause some photons to arrive a little earlier and some photons to arrive a little later then, of course, it is no surprise that both stretching of the photons and time of arrival of the photons synchronize, i.e. it is no surprise that a supernova that takes 20 days to decay but appears to take 40 days has photons that have become twice as long, thus showing a redshift of z=1. End May 2004]
[June 2004: Lower temperatures of cosmic microwave background radiation photons passing through relatively strong gravity fields can be seen as a gravity is the ether confirmation, 1-2. End June 2004]
[May 2003: Many experiments in order to validate ether theories can be found in the books and websites of others, for instance: Hatch4, Assis2, Ghosh3, Marmet11 and in Pushing Gravity5. End May 2003]
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 the pipe standing still or moving to the right) 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 to travel from A to B with the pipe standing still is:
tB - tA = LAB/c = 1 x 10-7 s
And the time the light needs 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 time differences in the order of 10-14 s have to be measured in an experiment with the above mentioned lengths and velocities. [May 2003: Measuring time differences up to 10-18 has become possible lately17. End May 2003]
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.
Something else: An experiment may be done 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.
[May 2003: A professor of a General Relativity Group in the UK made it clear to me that the experiment as shown in Fig. 2-2-VIII won't lead to any experimental evidence unless you have an experiment with a light source with different light waves as in Fig. 2-2-VIII*. Right from the source different wavelengths have to depart in order to be able to measure whether Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration is right or wrong.
Figure 2-2-VIII*. Verification of Bradley's explanation of stellar aberration has to be done with a certain type of light source.
End May 2003]
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 waves 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 still want to cling to the theory of relativity when future experiments point out that there are no deviations to be found with the experiment of Fig. 2-2-VIII (with a source like in Fig. 2-2-VIII*). But if so then the light coming from the light source in Fig. 2-2-VIIIb/VIIIc is moving faster than the velocity of light c for an observer on the Sun).
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.
It may be very difficult to prove experimentally (with Fig. 2-2-VIII/VIII* or another experiment) 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 (see Fig. 2-2-IX) may confirm the gravity-is-the-ether hypothesis.
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 (see Fig. 2-2-IXa):
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 perhaps 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 (see Fig. 2-2-Xa):
D/d = c/(c2 + VEarth2)½
Which brings:
D = 0.999999995 x d
Perhaps this effect can be measured (with or without interferometers that can measure the diameters of stars).
See 3-1 for more experiments that may confirm the gravity is the ether hypothesis in the future.
[February 2004: In 2-1 I describe how in 18th and 19th century scientists expected photons from a certain star to have different velocities depending on the velocity of the Earth relative to that star. Perhaps one day certain (high energy) cosmic rays will be found from a particular source in the Universe or our Galaxy. Measuring the velocity of such rays (i.e. atoms/ions/electrons) with the Earth having different velocities relative to the cosmic ray source may explain something about photons too, i.e. when it is measured that very high energy cosmic rays (for instance very fast protons or very fast electrons) adjust their velocity to the velocity of the Earth orbiting the Sun (as suggested with photons in 2-1) then this measurement may be a strong hint that photons may act the same way (i.e. then photons too may adjust their velocity to the velocity of the Earth). End February 2004]
Part 3 (chapters 3-1 and 3-2) explains quantum mechanics with an ether medium and gravity with pushing particles.
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. And so we didn't know that sound was carried by airmolecules. 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 of 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.
[May 2003: In this chapter I reason with gravity particles being the ether. But the ether may turn out to be even smaller particles which then would cause the effects described in this chapter. Still, whether gravity particles or smaller particles bring the ether-effects: the here discussed effects are the same, so I continue here to reason with gravity particles.
Dr. Thomas Van Flandern in Pushing Gravity5 chooses for two different media: a light-carrying medium (elysium) providing the relativistic properties usually attributed to “space-time-curvature” and another medium (gravitons) providing Newtonian properties of gravity.
I rather think of pushing gravity particles (gravitons) which are pushed themselves by even smaller particles (which may be pushed themselves by even smaller particles (3-2, 4-1), etc.).
Thus it remains to be seen which class(es) of particles exactly is responsible for the carrying of light. End May 2003]
The speed of gravity particles may be much higher than the speed of light.
[May 2003: Many scientists think that the speed of gravity may be much higher than the speed of light, see for instance Van Flandern, Radzievskii, Kagalnikova and Buonomano in Pushing Gravity5 and hereafter in 3-1. End May 2003]
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. Perhaps that all matter consists of one fundamental small particle (for example the gravity particle or even much smaller (and faster) ether particles) and that all properties of matter are due to the amounts of gravity/ether particles and their movement. (Though such gravity/ether particles may consist of even smaller particles, and those smaller particles may consist of even smaller particles, etc.)
Thus an electron may be a certain amount of gravity/ether particles and the charge of the electron may be due to the movement of those gravity/ether particles.
Imagine a light particle travelling as proposed by Gaasenbeek18 (see Fig. 3-1-I): the particle follows a helical path, i.e. it forms a three-dimensional sine wave, or: helical particle wave. Thus the wave and particle properties of light turns into: a particle behaving as a 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 circles around (VP) may change and thus the frequency (and energy) of a light wave may change.
If the light particle circles through an ocean of gravity particles while losing energy because of the 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, thus it may redshift (which then would explain cosmological redshift with a tired light hypothesis, see also chapter 1-2).
Figure 3-1-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)
[May 2003: The idea of particle waves has been worked out too by Dr. Vladimir B. Ginzburg19. End May 2003]
When an electron is in a magnetic field its motion is helical, the magnetic force is the centripetal force8. 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.
A photon may consist of a nucleus (with speed VL) with something orbiting the nucleus (with speed VP), both with their particular spin. A photon may also be a binary system with equal masses or a mono (helical path travelling) system.
[May 2003: Perhaps one should rather not think of a helical path, i.e. a “rotating disk” (of one or more particles) with its plane perpendicular to the forward direction of the light wave (VL), but of a “rotating disk” (of one or more particles) with its plane parallel to the forward direction of the light wave, or: a “rotating disk” which can be in all possible planes through the line of propagation, in order to explain the polarization of light, i.e. the plane of the “rotating disk” then can be polarized.
Perhaps another more enveloping way to look at a photon may be: A photon may consist of a nucleus with a second particle orbiting in multiple planes or a photon may consist of two particles orbiting each other in multiple planes or a photon may consist of a particle orbiting an imaginary nucleus (i.e. no nucleus), with all possible 3 systems having two possible ways of orbiting: in every possible plane through the central point of the system (i.e. photon) or in every possible plane through the direction of propagation of system (i.e. photon). Those planes may explain polarization. (Of course there may not be two but 3,4,5... particles in a photon.) End May 2003]
[November 2003: One may look at a photon as something that is a particle that moves through space (with a helical path) like blood through our blood vessels, i.e. a photon may be a mass-entity (like an atom or a meteorite or a blood cell). But, of course, a photon eventually may turn out to be something else, for instance: perhaps it is an energy wave (with a helical path) that moves through a medium like sound does through air, a photon then is an extremely concentrated “ball of energy” that goes through a certain medium (the ether) in a way similar to the way our nerve system works or rather: like a concentrated “ball of sound” would move through the air. End November 2003]
A gravity particles ocean combined with a photon-particle following a “wave path” may explain the interference pattern of the two-split experiment by Tonomura and co-workers20 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.
[May 2003: Exactly the same has been suggested by Edwards as well as by Buonomano, both in Pushing Gravity5. End May 2003]
Thus interference may arise, even when one electron, photon or atom by the time is send through one of the splits: because waves in the gravity (or ether) 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 Bohm20, but then local.
This 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 mechanics20).
[May 2003: I know now that there is a whole group of scientists21 thinking about local realist models, thus fighting quantum mechanics. End May 2003]
Also the results of the interference experiment for single photons of Aspect and co-workers20 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.
The delayed-choice experiment by Walther and co-workers20 can be understood by gravity particle waves too. Also the Pfleegor-Mandel experiment20 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 waves in the gravity particle ocean.
The two-split experiment has been performed by Rempe et al with (single) “screened” atoms22.
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 waves in the gravity particle ocean 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 micro waved. 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 micro waved).
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.
[May 2003: Quantum mechanics is, empirically, the most successful theory of physics so far. The reason for success may be the speed of gravity (or, as mentioned in the beginning of this chapter, the speed of even smaller (ether) particles). The speed of gravity/ether particles may be so much faster than the speed of light (see also Tom Van Flandern in Pushing Gravity5) that it is very difficult to measure that speed.
Quantum mechanics experiments over and over “prove” that certain reaction (action/passion-at-distance) times are zero (events occur “instantaneously”). But perhaps those reaction times are almost zero and as soon as we can measure them we may find we have measured the speed of gravity (in the case that gravity is the ether and not some smaller particle). End May 2003]
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.
[May 2003: Actually, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle may continue, but on another level: then smaller particles determine the boundary of what can be measured (but one may never know if there are smaller particles to be found, replacing the boundaries once again). End May 2003]
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/ether particles (because of the high velocity of the atom clock relative to the gravity/ether field the clock is in). (This would explain “transverse Doppler shift”12 too.)
[May 2003: The term “gravity/ether field” may be confusing. Perhaps it is best explained by: the Earth has a gravity field because the concentrations of gravity particles in the Universe are influenced by the concentrations of baryonic matter (like our Earth is a concentration of baryonic matter). At the same time the concentrations of a smaller class of particles or smaller classes of particles (smaller than gravity particles) may be concentrated too according to baryonic- matter/gravity-particle concentrations. A gravity/ether field (of a baryonic matter concentration) may relate too: A. (only) gravity particles, B. gravity particles and smaller particles and C. smaller particles.
Actually, a non-baryonic particle like a photon or neutrino or even a gravity particle may have some kind of ether-field too surrounding it (perhaps should have some kind of ether-field), you can never tell if there is or is not a smaller group of particles to be found some day (perhaps there always should be a smaller particle to be found). End May 2003]
Different concentrations of gravity/ether particles may mean that (small) differences may be found with the Michelson-Morley experiment of 188110 if the experiment is performed with one (of the two) photon-path(s) having 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.
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 so-called time dilation may be explained.
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 (in the case a magnetic field is caused by gravity/ether particles somehow) or perhaps atom clocks and radioactive particles show differences when they are brought deep into a mine.
[May 2003: I know now that many people have found the same reasoning concerning the explanation of “time dilation”, i.e. atom clocks speeding up or slowing down plus radioactive particles delay speeding up or slowing down. Especially Ron Hatch4 and Dr. Paul Marmet11 worked it out thoroughly, but also various authors in Pushing Gravity5 and Assis2 and Ghosh3.
They all embrace inertial forces related to gravity/ether. End May 2003]
The testing of Bell's inequality by Aspect and co-workers20 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/ether 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.
[May 2003: Buonomano in Pushing Gravity5 has the same reasoning. End May 2003]
[January 2004: If you think about gravity particles/gravitons then isn't it likely that such entities are much smaller entities than photons as well as they are much faster then photons? We checked out sound pretty fast because we can hear sound with our ears and we checked out light (photons) pretty fast because we can see photons with our eyes. Something like gravity we can feel in a way, but it is (more) indirect, we don't have a sense-organ that can “measure” it in a direct way (we need logic within our brains to “see” that there is something like gravity) and this may have made us blind in a way. Gravity particles thus may be much harder for instruments (our ears and eyes are also instruments) to detect because they are extremely small and extremely fast. So far we could not measure gravity particles or ether particles, but as soon as we look through a different lens we find many confirmations of such entities (2-2). End January 2004]
Also gravitational blueshift 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 also may be explained with gravity particles/ether. Also the bending of starlight by the Sun may be due to“pushing” of gravity/ether particles.
[July 2004: When gravity acts as a force upon a photon like the magnetic force upon an electron (3-1) then this may explain gravitational redshift too. When an electron (or charged particle) has some speed along a magnetic field line it will follow a helical trajectory. When the electron moves into a region of higher magnetic field strength the circular orbit shrinks while the circular speed increases. Perhaps the same can happen with a photon following a helical trajectory (3-1) within a gravity field. When the photon enters a stronger gravity field the circular orbit may shrink while the circular speed increases, causing the photon to have a higher frequency, i.e. (gravitational) blueshift. When the photon leaves a stronger gravity field its circular orbit may expand while the circular speed decreases, causing the photon to have a lower frequency, i.e. (gravitational) redshift. End July 2004]
[May 2003: Gravitational redshift and bending of light have been explained by inertial forces related to gravity/ether by many scientists, see for instance Assis2, Ghosh3 and Hatch4. End May 2003]
Perhaps the speed of gravity can be measured with a certain “action (or passion) at distance”, i.e. testing of Bell's inequality, experiments as performed by Aspect and co-workers20.
[May 2003: Caroline Thompson and other scientists favouring local realist models think that something may have gone wrong in Alain Aspect's Bell test experiments. They think that quantum entanglement of separated particles may not happen21. End May 2003]
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.
[May 2003: Kopeikin and Fomalont23 claim to have found the speed of gravity by doing such an experiment. They found that the speed of gravity is consistent with the speed of light by making extreme precise observations when the planet Jupiter passed in front of a bright quasar. This was the first time such an experiment was done and the first time scientists claimed to have measured the speed of gravity.
It is not certain yet if they really have measured the speed of gravity (a lot of scientists say that they did not23), but if they did and if the speed of gravity is the same as the speed of light, then smaller particles than gravity particles still may have much higher speeds, thus accounting for certain (above mentioned) experiments. End May 2003]
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 increases8. Because the particle's total kinetic energy cannot change, its motion along the field line must slow down8.
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 (that has a different speed, like the gravity field of the Earth relative to the gravity field of the Sun, see 2-1). Because the photon's total kinetic energy cannot change it has to change it's frequency, corresponding with the slowing down or speeding up of the photon. Thus it may change it's circular speed (when the photon follows a helical trajectory), thus redshifting or blueshifting in QB and QA in Fig. 3-1-IIa.
Light wave A gets “shortened” in QA: the kinetic energy of the light wave stays the same, but VL decelerates with 30 km/s. If the amplitude stays the same VP may be raised in order to keep the same kinetic energy and hence the frequency may be raised.
In the same way light wave B may be “stretched”.
Figure 3-1-IIa. Possible explanation of Doppler effect. The area within the dotted circle represents the gravity field of the Earth. The gravity field of the Sun is outside the dotted circle.
Figure 3-1-IIb. Possible explanation of aberration effect (the figure is leaning a little, sorry).
In the case of light wave C we may have: VL stays the same, the amplitude alters and VP-overall stays the same and so the frequency stays the same.
Light wave C may change its direction (see Fig. 3-1-IIb). If there is a double drag area then the light wave may accelerate from L1 to R1 (like VL of light wave B in QB). When it goes from R1 to L2 VP may decelerate (like VL of light wave A in QA). When the (overall) 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. 3-1-IIb), which may be the aberration effect. Thus the crash in effect and double drag effect mentioned in 2-2 may be the same.
When a photon consists of two particles orbiting each other than those particles may be built up by multiple particles too which may orbit each other. Thus one would get a helical trajectory within a helical trajectory, i.e. the particle(s) going from R1 to L2 follows a helical trajectory too (with much smaller amplitude), which would then possibly explain the deceleration. Thus both Doppler shift and stellar aberration may be explained by the same (intrinsic) principle.
[May 2003: I admit that this stellar aberration explaining stuff is quite speculative and beyond the contents of this chapter. And: the reasoning may become difficult with photons having a “rotation disk” that can be in all possible planes that go through the line of propagation, as mentioned above.
But still, with smaller “rotation disks”, as mentioned here, within the bigger “rotation disks”, i.e. a helical trajectory within a helical trajectory, there may be good chances to come to a underlying concept that can explain things on a deeper level. End May 2003]
M.A. Gelman15 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. 3-2-I). 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.
Figure 3-2-I. Gravity as a repulsive force.
Perhaps gravity particles cause the repulsive force instead of neutrinos. 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.
[May 2003: To my big surprise I discovered that Gelman had re-invented the pushing gravity idea. In August 2002 I read the great book Pushing Gravity5 (edited by Edwards) in which it is pointed out that it was Nicolas Fatio de Duillier (1664-1753) who was the first to have pushing gravity ideas on the cause of gravity. After Fatio's death Georges-Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) rescued Fatio's ideas, after having re-invented pushing gravity himself, from complete oblivion. The basic idea of pushing gravity is that matter sends out and receives gravity particles (or gravitons, as they are generally addressed), thus causing a pushing gravity force overall resulting in mass “attracting” other mass (by pushing). End May 2003]
If gravity is caused by gravity particles 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 universe6.
[May 2003: Professor Assis2 and professor Ghosh3 have worked out new physics with (an extended) Mach's principle as the key-principle.
Pushing gravity and Mach's principle are not exactly the same, but they both lead to the same new backbone of science: a causal understanding of gravity. End May 2003]
We may also go back to George Berkeley (1685-1753). 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 universe6.
[May 2003: Sooner or later everybody comes to Newton (1642-1726) to set the record straight. Nicolas Fatio de Duillier tried to make Newton consider the alternative concept of gravity which did not violate the causality principle. But Newton held on to objects acting on each other without intermediaries passing between the objects to convey the action and thus drifted off into postulates plus mathematics and so did conventional science ever after. End May 2003]
[November 2003: Another contemporary of Newton was Gottfried Leibniz (1646-1716). Leibniz attacked Newton's ideas about absolute space that is independent of matter. Leibniz argued that there is no space where there is no matter and that space in itself is not an absolute reality6. Leibniz also believed that forces could not act at a distance unless conveyed by a material medium6. End November 2003]
Brush16 thought that gravity is in fact merely longwave radiation pushing masses together.
From 1986 to 1990 there has been a controversy about experiments by Fischbach and Aronson24. 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.
This may also explain why hydrogen clouds may move faster than dust when attracted by large amounts of mass, for instance a galaxy. (If a high density object is slowed down less because of pushing gravity (i.e. inertial forces by gravity particles) then the opposite happens too: gas clouds speed up faster than dust when attracted by gravity. Or: dust gets attracted slower than hydrogen gas, see also 4-3. But: an individual hydrogen atom (especially an HII particle, having no electron) may be something else than a hydrogen cloud: an individual hydrogen atom (not in a cloud) may be speeded up slower than a dust particle, depending on the densities of the individual hydrogen atom and the dust particle.)
[May 2003: For the same hit-chance reason a plate may fall faster when it falls horizontal (in vacuum) than when it falls vertical (see Dr. Thomas van Flandern in Pushing Gravity5).
Reducing the hit-chance by placing massive matter around an object, thus reducing the weight of a body, is called gravitational shielding by gravitational absorption. The effect has been investigated by Quirino Majorana who claimed around 1920 that he had measured the effect5.
On the other hand: according to Mingst and Stowe5 precise measurements of the value of G in underground chambers show a greater value for G than those made on the surface of the Earth, which is not consistent with gravitational shielding. Taking in mind Fig. 3-2-VI may solve this problem: towards the center of the Earth there may be a more and more concentrating stream of gravity particles. End May 2003]
With gravity as a repulsive force by gravity particles 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 cosmic microwave background radiation) 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 ρ1, V1, ρ1 and V2 (with ρ = density and V = volume). (Instead of V rather the radii of (spherical) celestial bodies could be used of course. And one should carefully define what kind of density exactly is meant here, i.e. not only the mass per volume, also the “density” of the atomic nuclei may have to be taken into account.)
Perhaps my no-point-mass argument 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 then ρ 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).
Lower density: A. gravity particles “directing” the planet to the Sun will have more grip on the planet because of a higher hit-chance. B. gravity particles coming from all directions will slow down the planet more by inertial forces due to gravity particles coming from all directions.
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).
Perhaps such a thing can happen with pulsars (6-1) and white dwarfs (6-2). Such objects may flow out of the binary system they are in when the density of the celestial objects (suddenly) becomes much higher (by supernovae, novae or the collapse of a red giant).
[June 2004: Maybe that in the outer parts of the Milky Way stars can blacken en become denser, which then perhaps may cause such stars to be less tied to the center of the Milky Way by gravity and slowly move away to more outer regions of our Galaxy (4-4). End June 2004]
[March 15 2006: However, one has to take in mind here that the inertial forces that give the planets in our Solar System a centrifugal force may show a change of “grip” on the planets too with a different density. Perhaps that the change of “grip” of both gravitational and inertial forces because of density influences is exactly the same, perhaps not. (The density I mention here is not the normal density as we know it, i.e. mass per volume, but a density like: hit chance (by gravitational/inertial force particles) per volume.) End March 15 2006]
[September 7 2005: Perhaps another confirmation of this density-gravity-thing can be found in the observation that the inner core of the Earth (being denser) rotates faster than the outer core of the Earth, which consists of less dense material than the inner core (7-2). The less dense outer core then will be stronger attracted by gravity (caused by the Sun and/or the Moon) than the denser core because gravity may, as described above, have a stronger grip on less dense material. End September 7 2005]
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 (see chapter 7-1 for this new solar system formation model) 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, the terrestrial planets may have been stripped of their gas coat by the Sun as well, which is the conventional view and which seems to be observed recently25; perhaps both mechanisms exist).
If the above mentioned relation between density and “fall to Sun or escape Solar-System” concerning 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), Ganymede (1930 kg/m3 at 10.7 x 105 km) and Callisto (1790 kg/m3 at 18.8 x 105 km).
[November 2003: But it may be a coincidence just the same when the gravity mechanism that pushes the moons to Jupiter is exactly the same as the inertial mechanism (see for instance 3-2 at Newton's first law) that pushes the moons away from Jupiter, so this density/volume thing is something that is on shaky grounds. But... even if the gravity and inertial force mechanisms both are caused by gravity particles: with the inertial force the particles come from behind (in case of 3-2 at Newton's law) the moon and in the direction of the velocity of the moon and the particles causing gravity come rushing in perpendicular to the velocity of the moon, which may make a difference. End November 2003]
There are very concentrated masses orbiting stars at relatively very short distances from those stars, like the X-ray pulsar Centaurus X-3 orbiting a blue giant, see Fig. 3-2-Ib.
Figure 3-2-Ib. Model of the Centaurus X-3 binary system. (Adapted from a diagram by H. Gurskey8)
This may be no coincidence in the case those heavy concentrated mass objects can only be hold by the central star if there are enough pushing gravity particles (see also Fig. 3-2-VI) that have relatively low “hit” chance because of the high density of the orbiting objects).
The mass of Centaurus X-3 is estimated at 1.5 MSun and it moves in an almost circular orbit around the blue giant at 415 km/s. Its orbit has a radius8 of about 11 x 106 km (the orbit of Mercury has a radius of about 25 x 106 km). If Centaurus X-3 would have had a lower density (but the same mass) then perhaps it would have fallen to the blue giant.
(The mass of Centaurus X-3 may have been calculated too high by conventional science: a more dense object needs less mass to stay in the orbit of Centaurus X-3.)
[February 2004: Of course, objects orbiting big stars at very short distances have to be compact or else they would have been destructed by gravitational forces. End February 2004]
[May 2003: Gravity particles bend the velocity tracks of mass objects like our Moon (orbiting our Earth) stronger than photons. This may be due to photons being extremely compact (high density) and thus gravity particles can't get the same “grip” on a photon as they can get grip on, for instance, the Moon, a stone or a hydrogen molecule. With pushing gravity one may get differences between electrons, atoms and dust relative to each other. Also a dark matter object like a meteor may react different to gravity (particles) than dust. All because: with the pushing gravity particles concept the density of an object, dust particle, atom, ion or electron matters.
Not only bending of gravity is seen different in this respect, also the speeding up or slowing down by gravity of objects and particles is different for particles with different densities. With density (here) not only the mass per volume is meant, but also how the mass occupies the volume. For instance: Is there a big hit chance by gravity particles or not? Is the mass in the volume found in relatively few very concentrated (subatomic) “knots”? Or is the mass in the (same) volume found in many less concentrated (subatomic) “knots”? End May 2003]
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 then this may assist adjusting the law of universal gravitation.
[May 2003: Many scientists have come with new gravitation formula's that you can check on. Read for example the books by professor Assis2 and professor Ghosh3 or various authors in Pushing Gravity5. End May 2003]
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) looking at masses as point masses.
Figure 3-2-II. Calculation of the instability limit of the Moon with only the volumes of the Sun and the Earth.
If we take a look at Fig. 3-2-II 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 brings the right value).
[April 9 2005: The above “calculation” is to be seen as a beginning of trying to look different at gravity, i.e. in this case with taking the volume of an object into account when it comes to gravity. The above “calculation” is just mentioned as an opening to a new way of looking at gravity. End April 9 2005]
[May 2003: With very big different densities between the Sun and the Earth the above mentioned “only with volume” result may be surprising. The interior of our Sun (and thus the densities in our Sun) may contain a surprise, tough: the Sun may contain a big heavy element core (7-1). Perhaps that the mass and the density of our Sun are larger than thought so far. End May 2003]
[April 5 2005: Perhaps that the Sun just has different densities (and is the mass of the Sun not or not much higher than expected so far?), i.e. denser (than expected so far) in its center and less dense in its outward layers.
Something else may be important.
A team of planetary scientists and physicists has identified an unexplained sunward acceleration in the motions of the Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11 and Ulysses spacecraft316,317,318.
If you do not look at the Sun as a point mass then something may change. The outer regions of the Sun pull on the Earth too and the force that pulls is pointed from the Earth to the outer layers of the Sun, and this force can be split (in your mind) in a force pointing at the center of the Sun (the actual pulling of the Sun) and a force pointing perpendicular to the center-pointed force (the force perpendicular to the center-pointed force gives the Earth no gravitational pull to the Sun). In other words: because the Sun is not a point gravitational forces work a bit different then one may expect with the Sun as a point mass. Or rather: a spacecraft moving away from the Sun will be stronger attracted to the Sun at a larger distance than expected with Newton's universal law of gravitation, because the perpendicular force-component, i.e. the force pointing perpendicular to the center-pointed force, will become smaller relative to the center-pointed force when the spacecraft gets further away from the Sun (angle between actual force pointing at the outer layers of the Sun and the center-pointed force becomes smaller).
However, if the anomalous radial acceleration acting on spinning spacecraft is gravitational in origin, it is not universal, the researchers concluded. It would have to affect bodies massing a thousand kilograms or so (i.e. the spacecrafts) more than bodies the size of planets. The gravitational effect would also be seen in planetary motions, especially for the Earth and Mars, which is not the case, the team says. If they are right then perhaps that the spacecrafts may be less point masses than the Earth and Mars, i.e. when the mass of the spacecrafts is less in the centers of the spacecrafts (much mass in the wrappings) relative to the Earth and Mars.
Calculations about spacecrafts getting pulled harder than expected when they are further away from the Sun also may have to account for the heavy metal core that may be inside the Sun, i.e. account for the density differences inside the Sun. End April 5 2005]
If the law of universal gravitation should be adjusted with a density factor then Einstein's principle of equivalence is wrong.
[June 9 2005: I made a mistake here. I mistook the weak principle of equivalence for the strong principle of equivalence.
The weak principle of equivalence goes back to the Middle Ages and can be referred to it as the Newtonian principle. The Newtonian form of the principle of equivalence states that the trajectory followed by a small body in free fall is independent of the mass of the body. When the density of an object influences the way gravity works on the object then I think the Newtonian principle is wrong. This is what I meant.
The strong principle was introduced by Einstein in 1911 and can be referred to the Einstein principle of equivalence. The Einstein form of the principle of equivalence states that inertial and free-falling systems are entirely equivalent. When the density of an object influences the way gravity works on the object then the Einstein principle may be wrong, though it depends on how the density of an object influences the way inertia works on the object. (Actually, where it comes to the Newtonian principle of equivalence: inertial forces work on a small body in free fall. So also when it comes to the Newtonian principle of equivalence: it remains to be seen if the (kind of) mass of the body influences the trajectory of the small body in free fall.) End June 9 2005]
Russell 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 (3-2).
[May 2003: See also Assis2 and Ghosh3. End May 2003]
Gravity particles being reformed into matter would solve the gravity riddle that says that gravity forces in an infinite universe would become infinite6.
[May 2003: Assis2 and Ghosh3 and various authors in Pushing Gravity5 give the same solution (i.e. absorption of gravity) for the gravity riddle. End May 2003]
Gravity as a repulsive force may 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.
[May 2003: "In the early 20th century Hugo von Seeliger (1909), Kurt Bottlinger (1912) and Quirino Majorana (1919, 1920) proposed a new kind of model, assuming that all bodies emit in all directions particles (or waves) of a special type that produce gravitational forces." Roberto de Andrade Martins in Pushing Gravity5. End May 2003]
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 by pushing very hard from all sides to the dense sphere of multiple neutrons/protons). 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.
[May 2003: Jones (1987) and Byers (1995) have given arguments supporting Le Sage-type shielding (which is the same as what I am referring to here) as the source of the strong force binding nucleons, see Edwards in Pushing Gravity5. End May 2003]
[June 11 2005: This would mean that inside our body subatomic particles are under enormous pressure (think of the energy that comes free in atom bombs) by smaller particles. We don't feel this because the smaller particles push from all sides at subatomic particles (this also goes for gravity, we only feel the net result of the gravity caused by the mass of the Earth, but inside our body gravity particles may squeeze (certain) subatomic particles very hard).
When you look at gravity as particles (or waves) coming from all directions and pushing (larger) mass particles together, like a proton, the Earth or our Galaxy, then what you get is: the smaller the mass particle the larger the (relative) pressure. When you think of galaxies in a cluster of galaxies getting together under the influence of gravity then most of the gravity particles will fall through the cluster because most part of the cluster is intergalactic space. But relatively many gravity particles will hit something when going through a galaxy. When you think of the stars in a galaxy then most gravity particles will fall through the galaxy because most of the galaxy is interstellar space. But relatively many gravity particles will hit something when going through a star. When you think of atoms within the Earth then most of the gravity particles will fall through the Earth because most of the atom is empty. But relatively many gravity particles will hit something when going through the nucleus of an atom. When you think of a proton in an atom then most of the gravity particles may fall through the proton because most of the proton is empty?
Local the pressure by gravity particles gets high. But when “local” means particles that have sizes that start to become relatively small compared to gravity particles then the local pushing force by gravity particles may become very high. This way forces in atoms, like the strong nuclear force that keeps the nuclei of atoms together, may be explained and how the force of gravity may be brought into a model with the other three forces of nature. In such a model I consider it as most likely that you have to presume that there are other (small and smaller) particles (than gravity particles) too that push (in the same way as gravity particles). Perhaps that in such a model ever smaller particles are needed to bring over forces from one (small/smaller) mass particle to another, but perhaps there can a particle that really is the smallest particle that exists. Though, perhaps that it is most likely that we never can be sure whether or not there is a smaller particle to be found. End June 11 2005]
[June 9 2005: What causes two half iron spheres to be pushed very hard against each other when the inside of the sphere is sucked vacuum? The absence of air molecules inside the sphere brings a force that pushes very hard against the two half spheres from outside the sphere, at least that is how I look against it. What kind of force can that be?
With Fig. 3-2-VI I argue that mass may attract more gravity particles. Perhaps that vacuum attracts some kind of particle too, i.e. a particle that is smaller than atoms. When you imagine that you drill a small hole in the sphere where air can pass trough then air will pass through the small hole very fast as soon as it gets its chance. Perhaps that the absence of air brings smaller particles than atoms to go to the vacuum through the iron of the sphere. Particles going in and out of the sphere may bring a strong pushing force directed towards the center.
Or perhaps: inside our Earth very strong gravitational forces are working towards the center of the Earth. But also: when gravity particles continually go in and out of matter then also very strong forces by gravity particles push outwards to the surface of the Earth. The difference between the two forces may be the gravity we experience. Perhaps that with the absence of molecules, i.e. in vacuum, very strong gravity forces are working, because of the absence of a counter force. Or perhaps it rather should be other particles than gravity particles, for instance ether particles or particles causing the inertial force (which may be the same, and which may be the same as gravity particles?). Something pushes the two half spheres together. End June 9 2005]
[April 2 2005: One may argue that the Moon falls on the Earth when it comes near by the Earth (while not having much speed orbiting the Earth), i.e. there is no repulsive force when the Moon comes near the Earth (as with two protons or with a proton and an electron). But there is a difference between the Earth/Moon and two protons or a proton and an electron. If there is such a thing as gravity particles then probably most of them will fall through the Earth and the Moon without interfering with the Earth or the Moon. Protons and electrons are much more compact, which makes things different. If gravity particles are absorbed by protons and electrons then protons and electrons ought to throw them out again too, which then may account somehow for a repulsive force at a close distance between two protons are between a proton and an electron (for instance, perhaps gravity particles are (more) thrown out in the direction of the (other) proton/electron because no/less gravity particles come from the (other) proton/electron; perhaps such a thing is possible on a subatomic (more compact) level).
If gravity particles are responsible for a force that pushes the Moon to the Earth then perhaps there are smaller particles responsible for a pushing force on a subatomic level. Smaller particles than gravity particles may also account for the ether, i.e. smaller particles may be the medium that light needs to propagate itself. I think that if we learn to see deeper and deeper into an atom we will discover ever smaller particles, it may be pretty hard to uncover the whole zoo, if ever possible.
Of course I give very primitive ways to try and understand certain observations we have made. But at least it is about understanding. Newton gave a name to a certain force (i.e. gravity), a force that makes a thea cup out of our hands fall to the ground, but he did not explain why the thea cup falls. The same with things like the strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electric charge, which are names for forces we see at work through observations, but what about understanding how and why such forces work the way they do? Before you can get into more complication to understand how the here mentioned forces work you have to start with very simple things to be able to make a start. That is what I try to do in this chapter. Actually it is what I try to do throughout this whole website. End April 2 2005]
There may also be repulsion by gravity particles coming from outside the atom which paths get bend (see Fig. 3-2-III) because the gravity particles pass the nucleus or electron of the atom at a nearby distance. Thus nearby particles, like an electron and a nucleus, or like a helium nucleus leaving an uranium atom, may repulse each other too, next to, as mentioned above, gravity/ether particles coming out of particles like, for instance, protons and electrons, plus gravity/ether particles coming from outside the system and not getting bend (like in Fig. 3-2-III). This would imply necessity for smaller particles than gravity particles in order to bend the gravity particles' direction.
Figure 3-2-III. Repulsion between proton and electron because of (bending of) gravity particles coming from outside the atom.
Subatomic rotation may continue due to gravity/ether particles (coming from all sides outside the atom, or rather: outside the subatomic particle) that give the energy for rotation, or/and subatomic rotation may continue due to gravity/ether particles leaving the subatomic particle.
Subatomic movement of an electron (around the nucleus in an atom) too may be due to gravity/ether particles that push the - electron to and fro the + charged nucleus of an atom. But also: there may be gravitational shielding by the nucleus of the atom, thus causing the electron to rotate/spin because one side of the electron gets much more hit by gravity particles coming around one (“horizon”) side of the nucleus; like a top that's getting whipped.
With gravity/ether particles as a repulsive force mass-particles can rush away from each other and so baryonic matter may come to existence out of “nothing”, or: out of gravity particles (perhaps together with other non-baryonic particles like neutrinos and photons).
Figure 3-2-IV. An example of how baryonic mass may come to existence.
A primitive example of how baryonic mass may come to existence out of non-baryonic particles is shown in Fig. 3-2-IV. A stream of non-baryonic particles happens to flow (by coincidence or some force) in one direction. With repulsive ether forces in the bundle of particles (which, again, may show necessity for smaller ether particles than gravity particles) the bundle splits up in two particles, both with a certain spin, that rush away from each other. Strong gravity can cause matter to come to existence in vacuum (as tests in laboratories have shown6). Perhaps dark matter can be, somehow, the cause of baryonic matter coming to existence.
[May 2003: In an infinite (both in time and space) universe there has to be a mechanism that brings photons back into baryonic matter. I have found another, to my opinion much simpler and more plausible, mechanism that can produce baryonic matter. This hydrogen production mechanism is explained in 5-2 and 6-1.
In books and websites by dissidents I didn't see a hydrogen production system in empty space without dark matter playing a substantial part. But I did see some suggestions for hydrogen production with dark matter (or rather: baryonic matter as in our Earth). Edwards and Kokus each describe a hydrogen production mechanism (which differ from each other) in Pushing Gravity5, with dark/baryonic matter having a substantial part in the hydrogen production. End May 2003]
Neutrinos (having non-zero rest mass) are often suggested as the cause of the missing non-baryonic dark matter in the universe. If gravity/ether particles have non-zero rest mass than this too may help to solve the non-baryonic matter abundance problem.
[May 2003: This problem may already vanish by throwing the idea of a big bang overboard. End May 2003]
Magnets may attract each other by loops of certain particles, see Fig. 3-2-V.
Figure 3-2-V. Magnets attracting each other.
Perhaps gravity (for example gravity of stars, see Fig. 3-2-VI) 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. [November 2003: Gravity/ether particles in higher concentrations around a mass object like our Sun or our Earth as shown in Fig. 3-2-VI may explain the ether concept (2-1), i.e. it may offer a way of understanding why gravity particles cause photons from stars to adjust their velocity to the velocity of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. End November 2003]
[February 2004: Perhaps that every mass is surrounded somehow by smaller masses, i.e. also a neutron, or a photon, or an electron, or even a gravity particle. Smaller particles concentrating around gravity particles may also be surrounded themselves by even smaller particles, etc. This way there may be no end to smaller particles, up to infinity. As written in chapter 1-2: infinity is something we can not understand, by definition, because we, as humans, are finite, i.e. we die. End February 2004]
Figure 3-2-VI. 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, again, 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 (because of pushing by smaller particles than gravity particles, see Fig. 3-2-III).
[June 13 2005: With more gravity particles assembling themselves around mass concentrations one may explain the refraction of light. Light may be bend by gravity particles or smaller particles towards the medium that is “heavier”. Glass is “heavier” than air. When a photon goes from air to glass then just before it enters the glass it may be bend towards the glass because it is pushed towards the glass by gravity particles or smaller particles than gravity particles. When it leaves the glass then it may be bend towards the glass too just after it has left the glass. This may explain why there is no refraction when light enters the new medium perpendicular, and why the refraction becomes larger when light enters the new medium less perpendicular (because then the pushing small particles have more chance to bend the path of the photon).
With gravity particles (and smaller particles than gravity particles) assembling themselves around mass concentrations one may explain why the speed of light in “heavier” media is slower: more resistance by more (small) mass particles. Sound goes faster in denser media, because sound is propagated by atoms/molecules that bounce into each other. Light goes slower in “heavier” media, because a photon has to been seen as a particle and not as a wave within ether? Also the explanation of stellar aberration may be easier with light as a particle. And: we know of fast particles that travel at almost the speed of light: cosmic rays, i.e. nuclei of atoms, and electrons and positrons. Perhaps a photon is a particle. End June 13 2005]
[June 2004: When cosmic microwave background radiation gets lower temperatures when the cosmic microwave background radiation photons pass through relatively strong gravity fields (1-2) then this may be a confirmation of Fig. 3-2-VI, i.e. gravity particles may concentrate themselves around strong concentrations of matter like a planet, star, galaxy or cluster of galaxies. Without a concentration of gravity particles as suggested in Fig. 3-2-VI it may be very hard to understand what a stronger gravity field exactly is and how a stronger gravity field can account for a stronger tired light redshift. End June 2004]
[December 2004: With gravity particles concentrating themselves around strong concentrations of matter like a planet, star, galaxy or cluster of galaxies as suggested in Fig. 3-2-VI one may suspect that the gravity we experience would become stronger when we (in an imaginary short time) would travel with our Earth from the outskirts of our Milky Way to the center of our Milky Way. End December 2004]
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 (classes of) particles (or particle levels)... there may be no end to smallness, like our universe may be infinite large (i.e. perhaps that every cluster is part of an even larger cluster).
[February 2004: In chapter 4-1 it is argued that galaxies and clusters shrink and that the shrunken galaxies become the centers of future galaxies. Now take a cluster of galaxies in mind. The centers of the galaxies in the cluster originate from a much bigger cluster that has shrunk. But the centers of the galaxies of that bigger cluster originate from galaxies of an even bigger cluster of galaxies that has shrunk, and the centers of the galaxies of that even bigger cluster, etc. Though, perhaps this way one can reason that there are always bigger clusters to be found. Perhaps that this does not necessarily mean that the universe is not homogeneous filled with galaxies when you look at the Universe on extremely large scales.
You may also reason that there are not always bigger clusters to be found when relative small amounts of dark matter (escaped from galaxies) in nonluminous voids can assemble more and more matter (5-4) until galaxies light up in nonluminous voids without an old galaxy in its center. I think that if there are no galaxies lighting up without an old galaxy in its center then you can't have an infinite (stable) universe, for then the universe would “run out of” galaxies serving as centers for new galaxies. Perhaps that AGNs (5-1) can also come to existence without a (shrunk) galaxy or cluster as a progenitor. Galaxies and AGNs coming to existence without a galaxy or a cluster of galaxies as a progenitor would mean that universal engines (4-1) too can come to existence without a galaxy as a progenitor. And: perhaps that the difference between ellipticals and spirals (4-3) then (also) may be: spirals have a universal engine because they have a nucleus that descends from an old galaxy, where ellipticals may come to existence in a nonluminous void without a former (big) galaxy in its center (and an assemblage of from galaxies escaped dark matter instead). But also: perhaps that an assemblage of matter escaped form galaxies can get momentum too, thus originating a spiral instead of an elliptical. End February 2004]
[May 2003: Smaller particles may be faster particles, playing roles on both deeper (=smaller) subatomic levels plus deeper (further away in the Universe) space levels. Thus there may be deeper and deeper ether levels and one may never know if there is a possible deeper level to be found, no matter how far intelligent life has evolved. End May 2003]
Also electric charges may have some kind of loops of certain particles (for a primitive example: see Fig.3-2-VII).
Figure 3-2-VII. Electric charges may have loops.
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 concerning electrical charge.
For example: imagine that a + charged particle consists of (streams of) gravity (or even smaller ether) 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. 3-2-VIII (this example too shows necessity for particles even smaller than gravity/ether particles in order to make the gravity/ether particles bend). The + and - particles rotate plus continually send out smaller (gravity/ether) particles and continually receive (gravity/ether) particles, thus + and - particles may attract each other and particles with the same charge may repulse each other.
Figure 3-2-VIII. Example of how movement of mass may cause attraction between + and - charge.
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 Earth10.
The slower vibration on the Sun may be caused by more gravity/ether particles (see also Fig. 3-2-VI: baryonic mass concentrations may result in higher gravity/ether particle concentrations) slowing down the electrons.
Our Solar System has a place in our Galaxy (see Fig. 3-2-IX).
Figure 3-2-IX. Our Solar System in the Galaxy.
Electrons on Earth may have different vibration rates depending on the place of the Earth in its orbit: flows of gravity particles in our Galaxy may cause different vibrating rates of electrons in hydrogen atoms. If the vibration rate is also caused by the direction of velocity of objects (like our Earth at different moments in 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. 3-2-IX), when the positions are compared with the (more 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. 3-2-IX), due to the velocity of the Earth compared to the direction of the largest gravity particles stream: many gravity particles coming from the universe will be absorbed in the nucleus of the Galaxy, so in position C the Earth “runs into more” gravity particles that go to the galactic nucleus.
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).
[May 2003: See also Hatch's work4 about atomic clocks being in all kind of positions. Vibration rates of electrons in hydrogen and (vibration rates in) atomic clocks both may represent the amounts of gravity/ether particle “hit-rates”.
Where atomic clocks “meet” more gravity particles atomic clocks run slower. For instance: atomic clocks are found to run slower when the Earth is closer to the Sun (in the Earth's ellipse around the Sun). This can both be because the Earth is closer to the Sun (and hence goes through a more concentrated stream of gravity/ether particles) or/and because the Earth moves faster (in the ellipse around the Sun) when its closer to the Sun.
And: atom clocks are found to run slower when they are in a valley instead of on the nearby mountain (which is the same as the above mentioned higher G value in underground chambers); perhaps because closer to the Earth there are more gravity/ether particles.
These may be confirmations with respect to Fig. 3-2-VI: there may be more gravity particles near mass, i.e. gravity particles may be pushed themselves by a class of smaller particles. End May 2003]
Newton's first law may be explained by gravity particles and smaller particles.
Imagine a planet like our Earth (or rather: a single dark matter object) moving with constant velocity through intergalactic space. Something has to push the planet or else the planet would be stopped by a single intergalactic atom that would bump into the planet. What can that driving pushing force be?
If there are smaller particles that push gravity particles towards mass than those smaller particles have more time to push a certain gravity particle to a (baryonic) particle in the planet when the gravity particle comes from “behind” the planet, i.e. the gravity particle moves in the same direction as the planet is moving (see also the bending mentioned with Fig. 3-2-III). Thus the number of gravity particles coming from “behind” the planet may have a higher “hit-rate” than gravity particles coming from other directions. Perhaps it is as simple as that. End May 2003]
[November 2003: With gravity particles and particles smaller than gravity particles everywhere one thus can say that there is never a moment for a body when there are no forces working on the body. Then the concept inertial force is not inertial at all: if a body goes through intergalactic space with a constant velocity there are forces (i.e. gravity particles) working on the body all the time. If not then the smallest particle would be able to stop the (velocity of the) body. End November 2003]
[April 22 2005: Cosmic rays can be atoms or electrons going extremely fast through space. Also atoms and electrons may be pushed forwards by the here mentioned “inertial” force. But perhaps also photons may be propagated by the same principle (see also 2-2). End April 22 2005]
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, which may be a certain amount of gravity/ether 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.
[May 2003: Various authors in Pushing Gravity5 suggest that radiation of photons may be a way for mass to avoid overheating by absorption of gravity particles. End May 2003] [July 2004: See also 6-2. End July 2004]
Also: perhaps light waves “erode”, or: lose gravity/ether particles, when they redshift (and gain gravity/ether particles when they blueshift).
Perhaps the amount of mass in a mass particle and the velocity/rotation of that mass particle are correlated somehow. [May 2003: I admit that things become spooky speculative from here in (the last paragraphs of) this chapter. End May 2003]
If gravity particles (and/or radiation and/or some other form of matter) can turn back in hydrogen atoms somehow without the help of dark matter/baryonic matter then the second law of thermodynamics is wrong. (The second law of thermodynamics is already violated by all living biological organisms, anyway.)
According to 1-1 there is a chance that we may regard gravity particles (or photons or neutrinos) 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.
At the same time there is a desire/will to bind and connect and form larger systems that can “feel” more (1-1) and so hydrogen may be formed out of smaller particles.
[May 2003: Just some fun physics to make a smile. End May 2003]
If gravity particles (and/or radiation and/or some other form of matter) came to existence due to matter coming out of completely nothing then this would violate the principle of energy conservation. 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 possible creation of matter (gravity particles, or even smaller particles) out of completely nothing (and, of course, vice versa).
One may never know if there is something like completely nothing, one may never know if the principle of energy conservation is wrong or right.
This is the same as: one may never know if there is a smaller class of particles to be found.
There may be some kind of equilibrium in the Universe concerning “free” gravity particles and other non-baryonic matter turning into “bound” particles (for instance in the form of protons) and vice versa, like there may be an equilibrium concerning dark (baryonic) matter versus luminous (baryonic) matter (4-1).
Superconductivity starts at very low temperatures. If gravity/ether 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 perhaps triggers some kind of physical evolution of extremely premature life, i.e. hydrogen production or production of (much) smaller particles.
[May 2003: Inertial/gravity effects involving high voltages and superconductors are being investigated by Podkletnov's team in Moscow. Also NASA and several laboratories worldwide research gravity-superconductivity relations. See Hathaway in Pushing Gravity5. End May 2003]
Part 4 (chapters 4-1 –› 4-4) presents an infinite universe as an alternative for big bang cosmology.
[May 2003: Since May 2002 I know that many people made the same conclusion: an ether theory (or: extended Mach's principle) instead of relativity (2-1), a tired light hypothesis instead of expansion redshift (1-2) and cosmic background radiation as the equilibrium temperature of the universe (4-2). They all have found a universe that is endless in both time and space, see for instance the work by the physics professors Assis2, Ghosh3, Marmet11 and Selleri64, Dr. Van Flandern9 and various authors in Pushing Gravity5.
Some call it a static universe, others a universe in dynamical equilibrium, and in the early 20th century has been spoken of a static steady-state universe (4-1). I like: the infinite universe. Infinite in both space and time. I guess I like to live in an infinite universe. End May 2003]
[October 2003: See also an article by Assis and Neves76 if you want to know more about static universes suggested in the past.
William Mitchell75 describes an extremely old universe in which shrunken remnants of old galaxies can become the nuclei of new galaxies (4-1) as well as AGNs (5-1) and in which radio loud activity by AGNs provides matter for new stars/galaxies (5-2). He has named his universe the recycling universe, it is much the same as the universe described on this website. End October 2003]
With a tired light hypothesis explaining cosmological/distance redshift and an ether theory explaining the apparent constant velocity of light there is space again for an infinite universe (again, for centuries ago scientists thought about infinite universes too6). (For an alternative explanation of the cosmic background radiation: see 4-2.)
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 (the Hoyle/Bondi/Gold model), but all cosmologists agreed with an expanding universe because everybody agreed with the general theory of relativity. Expanding is something we can forget about with an Leibniz/Mach/ether theory instead of relativity.
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 labour and skill, could be derived directly from simple Newtonian theory6.
Thus one may say that in order to be able to look at the universe as non-expanding Newtonian theory ought to go down as well.
Pushing gravity instead of Newtonian theory (3-2) solves this problem.
[May 2003: Changing Newtonian as well as relativistic gravitation models has been done very thoroughly by Assis2 and Ghosh3 and also by various authors in Pushing Gravity5. End May 2003]
Harrison6 reports that the epic poem The Nature of the Universe by Lucretius in 55 BC, discovered in 1417, already awakened the idea of an infinite universe in the 15th and 16th century. In 1576 Thomas Digges was the first to advance a universe with infinite stars in infinite space.
Static steady-state (or infinite) 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 MacMillan6. 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 matter6. This static steady-state universe enjoyed fame until the 1930s when, confronted with an expanding universe, it quietly faded away.
The late Dr. Grote Reber has described an infinite universe in 197716. He saw 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 cosmological redshift is explained16. (Grote Reber, “the pioneer of radio astronomy”, passed away in Tasmania on December 20, 2002. Grote Reber created a 9-meter disk in his backyard in 1937. His disk was responsible for the initial mapping of the Milky Way and his work created a boom in astronomy, which later led to the discoveries of quasars, pulsars and other celestial phenomena. He received the highest awards in astronomy and was a NPA1 member.)
(I rather see gravity/ether particles or dark matter as transducers of energy, 4-2.)
V.C. Rubin and other scientists have shown that the galaxies have systematic peculiar flow velocities that make the nonluminous voids bigger6. Galaxies seem to be attracted to points where huge amounts of mass are concentrated, like the Great Attractor.
Here comes the idea that, once I had it in my head, led to the Parts 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this website.
Without an expanding universe the clusters of galaxies move towards each other by gravity.
Imagine 2 clusters of galaxies moving towards each other with a velocity of 400 km/s and imagine that the distance between the clusters is 40 million light years. This means that the clusters will “meet” each other (and (only) start circling around each other) after 30 billions of years. By then the galaxies in the clusters may have become dark and all we see is a nonluminous void.
Where we see luminous matter now we may see nonluminous voids in the far future, and where we see nonluminous voids now we may see galaxies in the far future. In a universe that is endless in time galaxies may darken and shrink and thus the universe may contain many remains of (blackened) stars and (blackened) galaxies. (I call blackened stars dark matter objects, 4-1.)
[May 2003: I look a little different at this now. Perhaps it is not possible to have new galaxies pop out “out of the blue” in nonluminous voids. Perhaps that clusters/galaxies are concentrating themselves all the time. This would mean that nonluminous voids “shrink”, are rather: a nonluminous void in a supercluster becomes smaller because the whole supercluster becomes smaller because galaxies/clusters move towards each other, i.e. concentrate (see also 3-2). Concentrated galaxies/clusters attract hydrogen by gravitational forces and thus (may) lighten up again as smaller objects (4-3).
[June 2003: I already changed my mind about this again. Perhaps very little amounts of dark matter that have escaped from galaxies and that flow through enormous large nonluminous voids can collect new material (i.e. hydrogen, dust and larger particles/objects) and thus build up new galaxies in a nonluminous void without the aid of shrunken galaxies (5-4). End June 2003]
[February 2004: Perhaps the two mechanisms co-exist. Perhaps there are always larger clusters to be found as well as that galaxies can come to existence without the aid of shrunk galaxies. End February 2004]
The “shrinking” of nonluminous voids may be a little complicated. For instance: the nonluminous voids in a supercluster become bigger because the clusters within the supercluster shrink (because galaxies within the clusters move towards each other), but at the same time the nonluminous voids in the supercluster become smaller because the clusters within the supercluster move towards each other too, which makes the supercluster as a whole shrink (too). End May 2003]
[June 2004: Thus there may be concentrations of dark matter in all kind of magnitudes. Such concentrations then may get fuelled by hydrogen from intergalactic space. The amount of hydrogen that will flow to such concentrations will depend on the magnitude of the mass in the concentrations of dark matter, the amount of hydrogen available and the competition by other concentrations of dark matter. This is similar to the formation of stars and brown dwarfs born from dark matter objects getting fuelled by hydrogen (7-1). End June 2004]
[January 19 2007: An international team of astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has created the first three-dimensional map of the large-scale distribution of dark matter in the universe. This was the first direct detection of dark matter and it was done by weak gravitational lensing. The team found that where there is a lot of dark matter there is visible matter too. Though, there are also places where there is dark matter but no visible matter and vice versa. It was surprising for the team to find places where there is visible matter but no dark matter. If there are galaxies where there is no dark matter the big bang model has a problem447.
In the model described on this website dark matter comes to existence by the darkening of very old galaxies in an infinite old universe. At the same time new hydrogen is created by old galaxies coming together by gravity into a very small volume leading to radio loud activity. So you have enormous clouds of hydrogen in the universe and concentrations of old darkened galaxies and old darkened clusters of galaxies. Where hydrogen flows to old darkened galaxies the old remnants of the galaxies will light up because hydrogen concentrates itself around old darkened stars and old dark remnants of shattered stars.
Where there are old darkened galaxies and old darkened clusters of galaxies and little or no hydrogen you may have dark matter without visible matter/galaxies in an infinite universe. Where you have visible matter/galaxies and no dark matter you may have galaxies that are fuelled by so much hydrogen that all the old stars and remnants of stars have been lit up by hydrogen and so no dark matter will be found at such places. Therefore in an infinite old universe you can explain places where there is dark matter but no visible matter and vice versa in a very simple way. End January 19 2007]
[September 3 2007: Big bang astronomers have discovered that the galaxy cluster system Abell 520 harbours a dark matter core in the middle of the cluster. This dark matter core contains hot gas next to dark matter but no bright galaxies. This poses problems for current (big bang) dark matter theories. In addition to the dark matter core, a corresponding region containing a group of galaxies with little or no dark matter was also detected. This is even more troublesome for the big bang astronomers467.
The galaxy cluster system Abell 520 may be composed out of several clusters of galaxies. The oldest cluster in the center may have blackened long ago and therefore contains dark galaxies or dark matter. The surrounding clusters slowly may have closed in on the central cluster and may be younger and therefore still have luminous galaxies (and also dark matter/dark galaxies). Meanwhile the central cluster with dark matter/dark galaxies may have attracted gas from the surrounding clusters and therefore may contain gas next to dark matter/dark galaxies. Also there may be a region/cluster with is very new or recently enriched with much gas, this region therefore may have luminous galaxies but no darkened galaxies and hence no dark matter. End September 3 2007]
[June 2004: With the here mentioned way of looking at clusters and galaxies one expects galaxies behaving “badly” every now and then, i.e. instead of starting orbiting a cluster some galaxies will go straight through the heart of a cluster they meet, which is something that is observed154. End June 2004]
[March 23 2005: Another example of a galaxy behaving “badly” may be the irregular galaxy NGC 1427A. Under the gravitational grasp of a large gang of galaxies, called the Fornax cluster, the small bluish galaxy is plunging headlong into the group at 600 kilometers per second. NGC 1427A, which is located some 62 million light-years away from Earth in the direction of the constellation Fornax, shows numerous hot, blue stars in a newly released image obtained by the Hubble Space Telescope. These blue stars have been formed very recently, showing that star formation is occurring extensively throughout the galaxy. Within the Fornax cluster, there is a considerable amount of gas lying between the galaxies. Big bang astronomers think that when the gas within NGC 1427A collides with the Fornax gas, it is compressed to the point that it starts to collapse under its own gravity. This leads to formation of the myriad of new stars seen across NGC 1427A, which give the galaxy an overall arrowhead shape that appears to point in the direction of the galaxy's high-velocity motion291.
NGC 1427A rather may be a very old shrunken and darkened cluster of galaxies or an old big irregular galaxy that darkened. (The Fornax cluster also may have attracted a “baby galaxy” from the center of a non-luminous void, 4-1.) The old cluster/galaxy has been attracted by the Fornax cluster and by flying into the Fornax cluster it may get the chance to assemble gas around its old cooled down stars which may be relatively large dark matter objects that produce bluish stars by assembling gas.
The big bang researchers think that NCC 1427A will be torn apart because of gravitational forces by the galaxies within the Fornax cluster291, but when there is a lot of dark matter in NGC 1427A in the form of dark matter objects the galaxy also may survive. End March 23 2005]
[October 2004: With the here mentioned way of looking at clusters and galaxies one expects large clusters to merge too, which recently has been observed254. End October 2004]
Thus (dark) matter (= galaxies and blackened stars) may concentrate itself at certain places in the universe and at the same time empty space is created.
Also: in galaxies there already may be very many darkened remains of stars when you consider those galaxies to be much older than 15 billion years, which may solve the missing dark (baryonic) matter problem in galaxies.
[August 2003: Also: when stars have large heavy metal cores (6-2) then the mass of stars may turn out to be much higher, which may solve (part of) the missing dark matter problem too. End August 2003]
[April 5 2005: If there is 5 times more dark matter than luminous matter then one may wonder why this dark matter has not been observed so far. Stars may contain more mass than thought. And: if dark matter gets the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation (4-2) it will be hard to detect. End April 5 2005]
One way or the other there ought to be a mechanism (or mechanisms) that produces hydrogen in an infinite universe (possible mechanisms are discussed in 3-2, 5-2 and 6-1).
If hydrogen is produced by AGN radio loud activity (5-2) then hydrogen streams through intergalactic and intercluster space and will be attracted by galaxies and clusters of galaxies, dark or luminous. Thus hydrogen may stream into luminous or nonluminous galaxies and produce new stars.
[March 31 2005: A big bang astronomer found that UGC 5288, a small galaxy 16 million light-years from Earth, is surrounded by a huge disk of hydrogen gas that has not been involved in the galaxy's star-formation processes. The astronomer thinks that the hydrogen gas may be primordial big bang material left over from the galaxy's formation308.
The hydrogen gas surrounding UGC 5288 may be an example of gas coming (directly) from one of the above mentioned hydrogen production mechanisms.
Why the gas in the disk has remained so undisturbed, without stars forming, is perplexing for the big bang astronomer308.
It is perplexing when one thinks of such gas as very old and very long around in a big bang universe in which stars form from gas clouds without the aid of dark matter objects. It is normal when one thinks of such gas as gas in an infinite universe that may have been produced not (very) long ago, or as gas in an infinite universe that has been produced long ago but so far has not been attracted by gravitational forces of dark matter objects (which would have caused star formation). End March 31 2005]
[February 2004: Perhaps a lot of gas is tunneled along so-called filaments (of galaxies) to clusters (of galaxies). The, of course, also luminous/nonluminous galaxies/dark matter may be “tunneled through filaments” towards clusters. In clusters a lot of (hot) gas is found with X-ray measurements, which makes sense with the on this website presented “hydrogen streams to luminous/nonluminous galaxies” model. End February 2004]
[May 2004: Recently another arm in the Milky Way was discovered. The structure consists of an arc of hydrogen gas 77,000 light years long and a few thousand light years thick running along the galaxy's outermost edge120. It would not be unusual for a mid-sized galaxy like ours to have arms that extend so far - the Andromeda galaxy, which is similar to ours, has long gaseous arms.
The group of big bang astronomers who did the discovery think that the arc could be a tendril that once joined up with another spiral arm. Another possibility they consider is that the gas was drawn out of the Milky Way in a collision with a dwarf galaxy early in its evolution.
I think that such arcs of gas originate from gas that flows from intergalactic and intercluster space towards galaxies as suggested all through this website: galaxies originate by gas (probably produced by radio loud activity) flowing through intercluster and intergalactic space, the gas then assembles around concentrations of (dark and luminous) matter.
Above I mentioned that gas may be tunneled through so-called filaments (of galaxies) to clusters. In the new discovered arm the same tunneling process may be going on in a slightly different way (because the arc of gas is rotating around the center of the galaxy) and on a (much) smaller level. Therefore it may be so that within the new discovered arms there are dark matter objects, which then may have the same function as the galaxies in the above mentioned filaments (of galaxies). End May 2004]
[June 2004: Recently a team of astronomers found that there is substantial evidence for infall of huge gas clouds into the Milky Way177. End June 2004]
Also on small scales galaxies and clusters of galaxies can swirl towards and around each other. One may look at our Local Group this way. The smaller galaxies within 250 kpc from our Galaxy may be, in a way, a cluster of galaxies (swirling around a central point that is close to or within our Galaxy). Also the galaxies within 250 kpc of the Andromeda Galaxy (M31) may form a cluster of galaxies (swirling around a central point that is close to or within the Andromeda Galaxy, probably between M31 and M33).
Thus cluster Galaxy et al and cluster Andromeda et al may form a cluster binary system that has been circling around for a long time. Perhaps that 50 billion years ago our Galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy were much further away from each other (and the et al groups also much further apart or not even existing yet), but already moving towards each other.
[May 2004: Lately a lot of research there has been done on this. Astronomers reported that our own Milky Way is consuming one of its neighbors in a dramatic display of ongoing galactic cannibalism115,164,190. Astronomers now agree that finally all the smaller galaxies surrounding our Milky Way will be consumed by the Milky Way and they say that our Galaxy will collide with Andromeda three billion years from now. Astronomers have known for almost a century that the two galaxies are falling together at 500,000 kilometers per hour118.
Big bang astronomers think that major galaxies are build by cannibalizing smaller galaxies and that major galaxies merge with other major galaxies. I too think that part of the smaller galaxies will be cannibalized by major galaxies, but some smaller galaxies will also start rotating larger galaxies and thus be progenitors of future globular clusters (4-4). I also think that major galaxies can start rotating each other while shrinking (both their size as well as their mutual distance), so I wonder wether our Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy really will collide within 3 billion years. I think that the very core of our galaxy shows different remnants of old galaxies (4-1), therefore I think that galaxies can start rotating each other while shrinking for a very long time. End May 2004]
[June 2004: When galaxies cannibalize smaller galaxies then also (small dark) galaxies/g-galaxies are to be cannibalized every now and then, which is something that may have been observed recently (4-4). End June 2004]
[May 3 2005: Cosmologists have been puzzled by the fact that not only do the Milky Way's satellites lie on a flat circle, approximately perpendicular to the Galactic Plane, but also there are far too few satellite galaxies to fit in with big bang predictions. This discrepancy had led some cosmologists to question the entire paradigm for the cold dark matter-driven process of galaxy formation. A team of cosmologists simulated the evolution of parts of the big bang universe, randomly selected from a large cosmological volume, using a sophisticated supercomputer model. The model built up a complete history of all mergers between galactic building blocks, resulting in a family tree for each satellite galaxy formed. Using the powerful supercomputer, they carried out six simulations in total and, in each case, found not only the correct number of satellites but also, surprisingly, that the eleven most massive satellite galaxies showed the same pancake-like distribution around the core galaxy that is observed in the satellites of the Milky Way. Far from challenging the current cosmological paradigm - the cold dark matter model - the findings of the group represent a triumph of the model and indicate that a coherent picture of how galaxies like the Milky Way emerged from the big bang is now beginning to fall into place329.
With old clusters of galaxies moving towards each other while shrinking and merging, and turning into new galaxies by attracting new gas as described on this website the small number of satellite galaxies and the flat circle of satellite galaxies comes in very naturally, as well as a big amount of dark matter in the form of old darkened stars. One may compare stars and dark matter in galaxies with a forest. In a forest most material resides in the forest in the form of dead material in the ground (dark matter), only a certain amount of the material is in the form of living plants and trees (stars). End May 3 2005]
Luminous galaxies flow to other luminous galaxies meanwhile losing much mass by radiation (and by gas, dust or larger particles/objects that are thrown/blown out of the galaxy) and in the end they start rotating around each other and thus they get closer and closer to each other while they become nonluminous.
[February 1 2008: This way of looking at clusters of galaxies is now starting to become common in astronomy: in the centers of clusters of galaxies there are old and dead galaxies where at the outskirts of the clusters new and fresh galaxies fall into the cluster477. Give them a little more time and they wil connect dark matter with old dark galaxies and old dark stars. End February 1 2008]
[December 2004: The first discoveries of intracluster stars in the Virgo cluster were made serendipitously by Italian astronomer, Magda Arnaboldi (Torino Observatory, Italy) and her colleagues, in 1996. Since these first observations, several hundreds of these intracluster stars have been discovered. They must represent the tip of the iceberg of a huge population of stars swarming among the galaxies in clusters. There must thus be a comparable number of stars in between galaxies as in the galaxies themselves. But because they are diluted in such a huge volume, they are barely detectable. Big bang astronomers think that the most likely explanation for their presence in the intracluster space is that they formed within individual galaxies, which were subsequently stripped of many of their stars during close encounters with other galaxies during the initial stages of cluster formation. These “lost” stars were then dispersed into intracluster space264. End December 2004]
If one starts thinking about our Local Group on an extremely large time scale one may picture in the very far future our Local Group as shrunken heaps of dark matter, or as 20 (dark) members rotating around a central point, all slowly approaching this central point.
[June 2003: Galaxies (or clusters of galaxies) may shrink and become AGNs (5-1). Our Galaxy and the M31/M33 binary may become a 2-to-1 system (4-3) in the future in which the Milky Way, M31 and M33 have become 3 quasars (5-4). End June 2003]
[June 2003: An example of galaxies in the process of shrinking, orbiting and interacting may be the 2-to-1 system NGC 6769/NGC 6770 versus NGC 6771. Stars and gas are being stripped off NGC 6769 and NGC 6770, starting to form a common envelope around them. There is also a weak hint of a tenuous bridge between NGC 6769 and NGC 6771. These features testify to strong gravitational interaction between the three galaxies. The warped appearance of a dust lane in NGC 6771 might also be interpreted as more evidence of gravitational interactions176. End June 2003]
[August 2004: Another example of galaxies in the process of shrinking, orbiting and interacting may be Seyfert's Sextet227. End August 2004]
[January 21 2006: More than half of the largest galaxies in the nearby universe have collided and merged with another galaxy in the past two billion years, according to a Yale astronomer in a study using hundreds of images from two of the deepest sky surveys ever conducted. The idea of large galaxies being assembled primarily by mergers rather than evolving by themselves in isolation has grown to dominate (conventional) cosmological (big bang) thinking. However, a troubling inconsistency within this general theory has been that the most massive galaxies appear to be the oldest, leaving minimal time since the big bang for the mergers to have occurred383. End January 21 2006]
[November 13 2006: Modern cosmological big bang models predict that small galaxies form first, and later assemble into larger systems like our Galaxy. Since the big bang universe initially only contained hydrogen and helium (most of all other chemical elements being synthesized inside stars), dwarf galaxies should have the lowest heavy element content. Not so, is recently said by big bang astronomers. As part of a large observational programme the amount of iron in over 2000 individual giant stars in the Fornax, Sculptor, Sextans and Carina dwarf spheroidals were measured. The data call into question the merger theory as the origin of large galaxies' haloes. Whilst the average abundances of elements in the dwarf spheroidals is comparable with that seen in the Galactic halo, the former are lacking the very metal-poor stars that are seen in the Milky Way - the two types of systems, contrary to theoretical predictions, are essentially of different descent. “Our results rule out any merging of the nearby dwarf galaxies as a mechanism for building up the Galactic halo, even in the early history of the universe,” say the big bang researchers444. End November 13 2006]
[October 24 2005: Located at a distance of about 45 million light-years NGC 1097 is a relatively bright, barred spiral galaxy seen face-on. The barred spiral galaxy has a very bright ring of stars and dust in its center. The ring surrounds a bright small nucleus that recently showed to have spiral structures372. Perhaps the very center of NGC 1097, i.e. the small nucleus that is surrounded by the ring, is an extremely old shrunken cluster of galaxies, where the ring surrounding the small nucleus is a very old cluster of galaxies that was torn up in the form of a ring by the small nucleus. The rest of the barred spiral galaxy NGC 1097, outside the ring, may have come to existence by a less old cluster of galaxies that was torn up by the ring and the small nucleus.
(You may like to see infrared pictures of the Andromeda galaxy375. Can it be that the very center of NGC 1097, i.e. the small nucleus with spiral structures that is surrounded by the ring, is what the whole Andromeda galaxy, with its bright outward laying dust ring surrounding the rest of the galaxy, is going to look in the very far future?) End October 24 2005]
During the tens, hundreds or even thousands of billion years the members of the Local Group and the Local Group itself shrink hydrogen may be attracted to the (dark) remains of the Local Group, thus finally producing a new galaxy with our darkened shrunken rotating Local Group as the new galaxy's nucleus.
Thus the galactic nucleus of our Galaxy, which is analogues to the nucleus of the Andromeda Galaxy, may be an old cluster itself. Perhaps it once was a cluster like our Local Group. Sgr A West has a spiral shape that looks like something between a Sc and SBc spiral galaxy (if so, then it rotates with a rotation axis that is perpendicular to the rotation axis of our spiral Galaxy, see also 4-4). Sgr A West may be an old spiral galaxy with Sgr A* as the nucleus of that old spiral galaxy. The oldest object in the Galactic nucleus may be the near-infrared source IRS16 (which may be the actual center of our Galaxy, rather than Sgr A*8).
[June 2004: Right now Sgr A* is seen as the very center of our galaxy125. Perhaps Sgr A* is an old AGN (5-1).
End June 2004]
[October 2003: Also Mitchell75 has suggested that old galaxies may become the nuclei of new galaxies. End October 2003]
[September 2004: Sixty-eight million light-years away, the Antennae galaxies, two spiral galaxies are colliding. Photographs show that the arms of the galaxies are being shredded, but the centers of the galaxies seem to remain intact253. Perhaps that the centers, being very heavy, can keep on orbiting and approaching each other for a very long time, until they have become the kinematic center of a new (elliptical) galaxy. Big bang astronomers believe that the two Antennae galaxies will ultimately merge into one spheroidal-shaped (elliptical) galaxy where I think that the two galaxies will shrink and ultimately become the center of an elliptical galaxy. End September 2004]
[March 30 2005: It is generally accepted that galaxies merge. Bigger galaxies cannibalize smaller galaxies. When two big galaxies merge their centers are likely to become the nuclei of the new galaxy. I think that when two merged big originally spiral galaxies become very old they will darken and shrink with their nuclei still orbiting each other in the very center of the new galaxy. Such nuclei later on may explain the nuclei in AGNs (5-1, 5-3) or in the center of cD galaxies or giant ellipticals (4-3, 4-3), i.e. when the merged dark galaxies are refuelled with new hydrogen/gas from intergalactic or/and intercluster space. Blackened stars from the galaxies (outside of the old nuclei) finally may make up a sphere of dark matter objects, i.e. sphere-like as elliptical galaxies but then dark (actually, the dark matter objects of our Milky Way already may be a sphere too, 4-1). Such a black sphere may become a future elliptical galaxy when the sphere with dark matter objects is refuelled with new hydrogen/gas. An elliptical galaxy later on may turn into a spiral galaxy (4-3). Smaller cannibalized galaxies may lose stars that are relatively far from their centers while the centers itself may be massive enough to survive. Stripped of centers of smaller galaxies may explain objects like UCDs, globular clusters, open clusters and super star clusters. (Though, perhaps rather part of the explanation, because such objects may shrink, 4-4).
Summarizing: multiple spirals may turn into an elliptical, which may turn into a spiral, which may merge with other spirals into one elliptical, which may turn into a spiral, etc. End March 30 2005]
[April 2 2005: The Hubble Space Telescope has helped to reveal a trio of massive, young star clusters which might have been formed by smaller clusters merging together. This tightly packed group of clusters were found in the active star forming region of NGC 5461 (located inside spiral galaxy M101), which is located 23 million light-years away. In NGC 5461, the various clusters are distinct, but interacting with each other, and will eventually merge into a single, super cluster. If NGC 5461 were several times farther away, even the Hubble Space Telescope would be unable to resolve this tight group of clusters. Therefore it is possible that some of the super-star clusters previously reported in distant galaxies actually consist of groups of clusters similar to NGC 5461. The Hubble Space Telescope images of NGC 5461 provide a unique glimpse of a super-star cluster in the making, according to big bang astronomers. There is no super-star cluster yet, but it is just a matter of time, they say314.
Dwarf ellipticals may become ultra-compact dwarfs which may be progenitors of globular clusters which may be progenitors of super star clusters which may be progenitors of star clusters (with no merging and the objects becoming old without extra supply of hydrogen/gas, 4-4). Next to this multiple dwarf ellipticals may merge into a bigger elliptical or spiral galaxy, or, as mentioned by the big bang team, multiple star clusters may merge into a super star cluster. It may be kind of the same as with ellipticals turning into spirals and spirals turning into ellipticals (4-1). Perhaps that in general most of the merging takes place when the objects have darkened, because the dark/non-luminous phase of galaxies (and stars) may be longer then the luminous phase (which then may be (part of) the explanation why there seems to be 5 times more dark matter than luminous matter). One may have to take in mind here that in all cases merging may be sooner to be expected when (new) hydrogen/gas from intergalactic/intercluster space falls into the objects.
A similar thing may happen with galaxies and clusters of galaxies turning into AGNs and vice versa (5-3) as well as with individual stars. Actually, this is what much of this website is about: objects in the universe shrink/“burn” everywhere while darkening. So objects become smaller. At the same time they, or what's left of them, (eventually) merge by gravity, and one day they will be fueled with new hydrogen/gas. So (multiple) objects become bigger (by merging plus hydrogen/gas). End April 2 2005]
[April 1 2005: The W.M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii observed two galaxies merging over 5 billion light-years away from us. Both galaxies seem to have used up all their gas. Big bang astronomers think mergers tend to trigger the formation of new stars by shocking and compressing clouds of gas. So the researchers were surprised to find that the system with a double nucleus is dominated by relatively red stars and does not appear to be producing many blue stars. According to the prevailing big bang theory of hierarchical galaxy formation, large galaxies are built up over billions of years through mergers between smaller galaxies. Big bang astronomers think that mergers trigger star formation, and so it is difficult for them to explain the existence of very large galaxies that lack significant populations of blue (what big bang astronomers call young, 4-4) stars311.
The system with a double nucleus may be a merging of two very old darkened galaxies that are being fueled with new gas. The new gas may have gone to the center first where it lights up the two nuclei as well as old (relatively) small dark matter objects (which then turn into relatively red stars) that surround the nuclei. Perhaps that the double nucleus system will appear to be or turn into a cD galaxy or a giant elliptical galaxy (4-1). End April 1 2005]
Thus clusters (and galaxies) may shrink, darken, attract hydrogen and become luminous again, but then as a galaxy. Or a supercluster may shrink, darken, attract hydrogen and become luminous again, but then as a cluster. Or a super-supercluster may shrink, darken, attract hydrogen and become luminous again, but then as a supercluster. (Within the “lifetime” of a supercluster or a super-supercluster there will be many smaller clusters inside the supercluster or super-supercluster that become dark and later become luminous again, the small ones as galaxies.)
[May 2003: With the in this chapter described universe one gets: superclusters shrinking into clusters, clusters shrinking into small clusters, but also: super-superclusters shrinking into superclusters, super-super-superclusters shrinking into super-superclusters, etc.
Thus there may be no end to cluster magnitudes, perhaps one can always find “one step bigger”, maybe up to infinity.
(In the same way one can look at subatomic particles: perhaps there are always smaller (subatomic) particles to be found, up to infinity (1-2).)
Perhaps there is always a bigger cluster to be found that shrinks too. And: perhaps not. Small amounts of dark matter in enormous large nonluminous voids may assemble hydrogen and thus slowly build up a new supercluster (5-4). End May 2003]
[August 2004: Perhaps many old galaxies of an old cluster of galaxies have shrunken very much and finally were refuelled with gas and thus lighted up as globular clusters in the elliptical galaxy NGC 4365236. Thus NGC 4365 may be a former cluster of galaxies. End August 2004]
If we look at the universe as being infinite in both space and time we start to look completely different. 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, a galaxy-galaxy or g-galaxy.
[August 2004: Certain measurements concerning gravitational lensing may be evidence for dark g-galaxies. The evidence comes from a 10-year census of the sky for examples of gravitational lenses, which are seen when a galaxy bends the light from a distant quasar to form several images of the same quasar. Linking the number of lenses big bang astronomers found with the latest information on the numbers of (luminous) galaxies that there is more gravitational lensing where it comes to the lensing of quasars than can be accounted for with the present numbers of luminous galaxies224. Non-luminous galaxies or g-galaxies may explain part of the gravitational lensing. End August 2004]
[February 17 2005: The National Science Foundation's Arecibo Observatory telescope, the world's largest and most sensitive single-dish radio telescope, is beginning a years-long survey of distant galaxies. The telescope will take advantage of a new instrument, installed last year, which is essentially a seven-pixel camera with unprecedented sensitivity for making radio pictures of the sky. It operates at radio frequencies near 1420 MHz, a frequency range that includes a spectral line emitted by neutral atomic hydrogen.
The survey will provide a comprehensive census of the gaseous content of the near universe and it will explore galaxies in groups and clusters (out to a distance of 800 million light years from our galaxy in nearly one-sixth of the sky) and investigate the efficiency by which galaxies convert gas into stars. What particularly intrigues the researchers is that the survey may determine gas-rich systems of low mass that have not been able to convert their cosmic material into stars - the so-called dark galaxies. Because these galaxies, being starless, are optically inert, it is hoped that they can be detected by their hydrogen signature278.
I think the survey indeed will show the existence of dark galaxies. Within an infinite universe as described in this chapter one expects to find dark galaxies. In the centers of large nonluminous voids one also may expect to find clusters of dark galaxies (or what I call g-galaxies, 4-1). End February 17 2005]
[February 26 2005: A galaxy that is made almost entirely of dark matter has been discovered by a team of astronomers. It's the first galaxy found to have no stars at all. The dark galaxy, named VIRGOHI 21, is in the Virgo cluster, a large group of galaxies about 50 million light years away. It has roughly 10% of the mass of our own Galaxy, the Milky Way. The researchers detected the characteristic radio-frequency signature of neutral hydrogen atom using the Lovell Telescope at the Jodrell Bank Observatory near Manchester, UK. They found that the hydrogen was swirling in exactly the same way as it would swirl around a normal, brightly lit galaxy. At first, they assumed that they were simply looking at a dim, dwarf galaxy. But by watching how the hydrogen moved, the researchers were able to calculate that the mass of the galaxy is relatively large. However, normal matter packed that close should have ignited some stars the team says. The galaxy hasn't converted any gas into stars at all. The observations of VIRGOHI 21 are consistent with the hydrogen being in a flat disc of rotating material - which is what is seen in ordinary spiral galaxies. The astronomers used the powerful Isaac Newton Telescope on La Palma in Spain's Canary Islands, to look for any scraps of visible light from the area; they found nothing. The most likely explanation is that the galaxy is made of dark matter, the astronomers say281.
VIRGOHI 21 may be a very old galaxy or a very old cluster of galaxies in which all stars have blackened. The hydrogen that has been measured may be old gas that has been thrown out of the galaxy or it may be hydrogen from intergalactic or intercluster space that has started to swirl towards and around the old darkened galaxy or cluster of galaxies. End February 26 2005]
[March 20 2005: The big bang astronomers have calculated that VIRGOHI 21 is a thousand times more massive than could be accounted for by the observed hydrogen atoms alone289. This may be the kind of magnitude that you expect when a massive very old cluster has gone dark and has attracted new hydrogen which has not lit up new stars yet. End March 20 2005]
[January 24 2006: New observations, made with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope in the Netherlands, show that the hydrogen gas in VIRGOHI 21 appears to be rotating, implying a dark galaxy with over ten billion times the mass of the Sun. Only one percent of this mass has been detected as neutral hydrogen - the rest appears to be dark matter396. End January 24 2006]
[April 12 2006: First results from the Arecibo Galaxy Environment Survey (AGES) suggest the discovery of a new dark galaxy. The AGES survey is the most sensitive, large-scale survey of neutral hydrogen to date. Neutral hydrogen is found in most galaxies and it is a key tool in the search for dark galaxies. The new candidate dark galaxy is located near NGC1156, an apparently isolated, irregularly-shaped galaxy found at the edge of the Aries constellation. The first observations in the AGES programme identified a number of new galaxies. One newly discovered source is approximately 153 million light-years from Earth and appears to be 200,000 light-years across. There is no obvious optical counterpart to the massive object413. End April 12 2006]
What I call a g-galaxy is, of course, nothing else than a shrunk cluster of galaxies that may be luminous, dark or partly dark. For example: the smallest g-galaxy we live in is our Galaxy plus the smaller galaxies surrounding it up to 250 kpc. A bigger g-galaxy is our Local Group. A far more bigger g-galaxy (which one may call a giant g-galaxy) is our Local Supercluster. All those g-galaxies may contain dark (or almost dark) galaxies that we have not observed yet. Our Local Supercluster may also contain dark g-galaxies (perhaps even our Local Group has a dark galaxy or even a (small) dark g-galaxy somewhere).
[July 10 2006: Arp 220 may be an example of a g-galaxy that was fed by new hydrogen gas, thus having very much gas, dust (by clashing old remnants of stars) and bright new stars. Arp 220 is believed to become an elliptical galaxy in the future421. G-galaxies are described on this website as progenitors of (big) elliptical galaxies. The many star clusters in Arp 220, star clusters with many stars in a small volume, may be descendants from old shrunken and blackened dwarf ellipticals of the old g-galaxy or old cluster of galaxies.
One of the biggest brightest clusters of stars in the sky is 47 Tucanae. Located about 16,000 light years away, this globular cluster contains a million times the mass of our Sun, and measures 120 light years across. The stars in the cluster are so dense, they average only 1/10th a light year apart; approximately the size of the Solar System422. 47 Tucanae may originate from an old dwarf elliptical. End July 10 2006]
Because there are concentrations of luminous matter in all kind of different ways in the universe there may be concentrations of dark matter in all kind of ways throughout the universe as well.
[January 21 2006: Astronomers have used the Hubble Space Telescope to map the dark matter in two very young galaxy clusters each containing more than 400 galaxies. They say that the images they took show clearly that the cluster galaxies are located at the densest regions of dark matter haloes385. Perhaps the dark matter haloes are very old clusters of darkened old galaxies. The dark matter may have attracted intergalactic gas, thus forming hundreds of new galaxies.
The dark matter distribution in the dark matter haloes are very clumpy, like the mass of (luminous) galaxies387. This is exactly what you expect when you think of old darkened (clusters of) galaxies in the form of dark matter.
Astronomers have found clear indications that clumps of dark matter are the nursing grounds for new born galaxies about twelve billion light years away. A single nest of dark matter can nurture several young galaxies. These results from big bang researchers at the Space Telescope Science Institute, the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, and the University of Tokyo confirm predictions of the currently dominant theory of (conventional big bang) cosmology known as the Cold Dark Matter model390. End January 21 2006]
[March 17 2006: Current (conventional big bang) theories of galactic evolution assume that dark-matter wells acted as a sort of “seed” for today's galaxies, with the dark matter pulling in smaller groups of stars as they passed nearby. Galaxies like Andromeda and the Milky Way are expected to have each probably gobbled up about 200 smaller galaxies and protogalactic fragments over the last 12 billion (big bang) years406. This is quite close to the way I think galaxies come to existence; the difference is that I think in much longer time spans within an infinite universe in which dark matter naturally comes up in the form of old (dark) remnants of planets, stars and galaxies. End March 17 2006]
[July 10 2006: A new study from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope suggests that galaxies form within clumps of dark matter. It suggests that not only is dark matter necessary, but a minimum quantity of the material must be present before a galaxy can form423. Perhaps g-galaxies must have a certain amount of (dark) mass (in the form of old blackened stars) to attract enough gas from intergalactic or intercluster space to form new stars. End July 10 2006]
[July 11 2006: European astronomers have discovered a primordial “blob” of dark matter located at a distance of 11.6 billion big bang light-years (redshift 3.16). This gigantic object is twice as large as the Milky Way, but it only emits as much energy as 2 billion suns. The discovery was made using the ESO's Very Large Telescope by surveying the sky in a narrow spectrum of radiation designed to highlight primordial hydrogen atoms. The astronomers think they're seeing large quantities of gas falling into a clump of dark matter, which could go on to build a large galaxy like the Milky Way426.
The “blob” may be an old cluster of galaxies with lots of old blackened stars that has attracted hydrogen from intercluster space. (The “blob” may be bigger as expected now by the big bang astronomers, 5-3.) End July 11 2006]
During their life stars “burn” gas and thus become stronger concentrated objects, i.e. objects with less mass but with much higher density. In 3-2 it is pointed out that objects with higher densities are more difficult for gravity to get “grip” on. Thus dark (or partly dark) g-galaxies, galaxies, star clusters or dark stars (that have shrunk and have become “denser”) may leave the system (they are in) and shoot apart into space.
[July 10 2006: A team of international scientists found a comet-like ball of gas over a billion times the mass of the sun hurling through the distant galaxy cluster galaxy Abell 3266 over 750 kilometers per second. This colossal “ball of fire” is by far the largest object of this kind ever identified. The scientists think that the giant gas ball is held together by the gravitational attraction of unseen dark matter424. Perhaps the “ball of fire” escaped from a galaxy or from a galaxy cluster because the galaxy or galaxy cluster shrunk and lost mass. The “ball of fire” may be an old shrunken (part of an) galaxy or even an old shrunken (small) cluster of galaxies with lots of old blackened stars that has gained new gas (perhaps by entering Abell 3266 which has a lot of gas). End July 10 2006]
There are reports on stars escaping galaxies (and stars ripped out of star clusters156), but the number of dark matter objects (like blackened stars and blackened white dwarfs, 4-1) leaving galaxies may be much higher. Dark matter objects can be in intergalactic or intercluster space for enormous times until they are attracted to a galaxy or a cluster of galaxies again. [February 2004: Or they concentrate (with other dark matter objects) in a non-luminous void and start a completely new (first very small galaxy, or rather: group of stars) in a non-luminous void, 4-1. End February 2004]
>[November 2004: The Sun and most stars near it follow an orderly, almost circular orbit around the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way. Using data from ESA's Hipparcos satellite, a team of European astronomers has now discovered several groups of “rebel” stars that move in peculiar directions, mostly towards the galactic centre or away from it, running like the spokes of a wheel. These rebels account for about 20% of the stars within 1000 light-years of the Sun, itself located about 25 000 light-years away from the centre of the Milky Way. The data show that rebels in the same group have little to do with each other. They have different ages so, according to big bang scientists, they cannot have formed at the same time nor in the same place. Instead, they must have been forced together258.
Thus, it may be likely that quite some stars can leave galaxies during the lifetime of galaxies. End November 2004]
[September 25 2005: Case Western Reserve University astronomers have captured the deepest wide-field image ever of the nearby Virgo cluster of galaxies, directly revealing for the first time a vast, complex web of “intracluster starlight” - nearly 1,000 times fainter than the dark night sky - filling the space between the galaxies within the cluster. The streamers, plumes and cocoons that make up this extremely faint starlight are made of stars ripped out of galaxies as they collide with one another inside the cluster, and act as a sort of “archaeological record” of the violent lives of cluster galaxies371.
Thus, there seems to be prove for many stars leaving galaxies during the lifetime of galaxies. End September 25 2005]
[February 2005: Astronomers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics are the first to report the discovery of a star leaving our galaxy, speeding along at over 1.5 million miles per hour. The star is traveling twice as fast as galactic escape velocity, meaning that the Milky Way's gravity will not be able to hold onto it280. End February 2005]
[February 13 2006: Five stars are speeding out of the Milky Way now are known, making them a new class of objects known as hypervelocity stars398. End February 13 2006]
[September 7 2005: Pulsar B1508+55, about 7700 light-years from Earth, moves with a speed of nearly 1100 kilometers per second. The pulsar is propelling out of our Milky Way Galaxy into intergalactic space355. End September 7 2005]
[December 2004: The first discoveries of intracluster stars in the Virgo cluster were made serendipitously by Italian astronomer, Magda Arnaboldi (Torino Observatory, Italy) and her colleagues, in 1996. Since these first observations, several hundreds of these intracluster stars have been discovered. They must represent the tip of the iceberg of a huge population of stars swarming among the galaxies in clusters. There must thus be a comparable number of stars in between galaxies as in the galaxies themselves. But because they are diluted in such a huge volume, they are barely detectable. Big bang astronomers think that the most likely explanation for their presence in the intracluster space is that they formed within individual galaxies, which were subsequently stripped of many of their stars during close encounters with other galaxies during the initial stages of cluster formation. These “lost” stars were then dispersed into intracluster space264. End December 2004]
Escaping dark matter objects may explain the presence of intracluster stars, which now are thought to be stripped of from parent galaxies during close encounters with other galaxies during the initial stages of (big bang) cluster formation26 (which is, of course, very different than the on this website described way of cluster formation). (Next to dark matter objects in intergalactic space there must be hydrogen in intergalactic space too in order to explain intracluster stars: radio loud activity by quasars and radio galaxies may be a hydrogen production mechanism, see 5-2.)
Next to (high density) dark matter objects leaving a galaxy there may be shrunk galaxies too that leave clusters because their density has become higher (3-2). And: perhaps that (shrunk) clusters can leave superclusters this way.
Thus there may be very much dark matter everywhere throughout the universe, of all kind of ages, in all kind of magnitudes and in all kind of concentrations. There may be dark matter in galaxies everywhere (for instance dark stars (or dark stars that have merged) in the halo, often called MACHOs: massive compact halo objects) and outside galaxies everywhere and outside galaxy clusters everywhere.
Planets and brown dwarfs, dark(ened) stars, or dark(ened) stars that have merged into one object, or (big) remains of clashed dark stars (like asteroids) or (aggregated) material (without gas fusion) ejected by supernovae (5-2)/X-ray bursters (5-2)/radio loud activity (5-2): I call such objects dark matter objects (7-1).
Examples of dark baryonic matter: dark g-galaxies, dark galaxies, dark matter objects and dust (perhaps also heavy elements if heavy elements are separated from protons during radio loud activity, see 5-3; though then, of course, one should also call protons dark matter, it is something arbitrary).
Examples of dark non-baryonic matter: radiation, neutrinos and ether particles (that may have different magnitudes, i.e. there may be larger and smaller ether particles, see 3-1).
[May 2003: 37.5 and 72 km/s redshift periodicities in galaxy redshifts
The first thing one may argue hearing this story about g-galaxies is: if so then we ought to see the galaxies in the big clusters being Doppler redshifted on one side of the cluster and Doppler blueshifted on the other side of the cluster.
Big clusters are multiple g-galaxies. What we may see is illustrated with a very small cluster in Fig. 4-1-I.
Figure 4-1-I. Simple example of peculiar velocities of: 4 x 4 galaxies in a cluster, or 4 small g-galaxies that form a larger g-galaxy. All arrows represent velocities of 36-37.5 km/s.
All 16 galaxies in Fig. 4-1-I are in one plane and are seen face-on. Imagine that we see the galaxies edge-on, we then would see the galaxies on “one line” (see 5-4 if you don't know what I mean). Imagine too that we would see 4 such groups, all in one (edge-on) plane orbiting each other as the 4 x (4) galaxies in Fig. 4-1-I, i.e. we would see 4 x (4 x 4) galaxies on one line. We then would “see” (i.e. if we only measure the redshift of the individual galaxies) some of the galaxies moving away from us, some galaxies moving towards us, some galaxies moving East, some galaxies moving West, some galaxies having no radial nor East/West velocity relative to us and some galaxies having both radial and East/West velocity relative to us.
Fig. 4-1-I is a simplified (2-dimensional) example of how in a cluster 16 (or 4 x 16 if you use your imagination) galaxies may orbit each other. For simplicity, and for “redshift-periodicity in galaxy redshifts reasons” (see hereafter), the velocities of the galaxies and g-galaxies in Fig. 4-1-I all have the same speed: 36-37.5 km/s.
A cluster normally exists of a (3-dimensional) “ball” of galaxies in which part of the galaxies move on more circular (face-on) orbits and part of the galaxies move on more radial (edge-on) paths.
What I want to illustrate with Fig. 4-1-I is: because a large cluster exists of many sub-clusters (with their own peculiar orbits as well as peculiar rotation) all kind of sub-movement is possible within a large cluster, and so: one does not necessarily have to get one half of the large cluster redshifted while the other half is blueshifted, with the red- and blueshift gradually changing from the center of the large cluster to the outward parts of the large cluster. All kind of deviations may be found with Fig. 4-1-I in mind.
With galaxies and (sub-)clusters of galaxies (g-galaxies) being attracted from far away to a large cluster (with the galaxies and g-galaxies having peculiar directions (and rotations) because of their original movement through the Universe) one will get deviating orbits and rotation of galaxies and g-galaxies (sub-clusters) in the large cluster.
Recently a team of astronomers have observed 29 galaxies in the cluster Abell 160, 19 of them appear to be moving on roughly circular orbits while 10 seem to be moving on more radial paths30,205. This was the first time astronomers had measured a preference for circular orbits in a cluster, so from here there may be much more information to be expected concerning the dynamics of clusters. My guess is that it will turn out that clusters are formed as described in this chapter: slowly moving towards each other in shrinking (more or less) circular orbits.
The rotation of the galaxies in Fig. 4-1-I are all the same (look at the (poorly drawn) arms of the spirals in Fig 4-1-I) as well as the directions of orbiting of the individual galaxies within the 4 sub-g-galaxies, and also: the directions of orbiting of the 4 sub-g-galaxies within the larger g-galaxy is the same.
When two galaxies orbit each other with “discordant dynamics” then those 2 galaxies may become irregular galaxies (4-4). Directions of rotation being the same as the directions of orbiting may be important for the stability of astronomical systems (see also 7-1).
When clusters of galaxies consist of multiple (sub-)g-galaxies all kind of things can happen with respect to the direction of orbiting of sub-g-galaxies. Perhaps only a few clusters will be very stable clusters as shown in Fig. 4-1-I, perhaps mostly there are some dissonants, some galaxies or g-galaxies that orbit/rotate different.
Perhaps this can lead to clues concerning regular clusters (4-4).
William Tifft27, Arp29 and Napier and Guthrie29 have reported on redshift periodicities within galaxy clusters.
Tifft found galaxies in clusters to be quantized in 72 km/s steps. Napier and Guthrie checked this and found the galaxies in the outer regions of clusters to be quantized in 72 km/s steps and in the inner regions in 37.5 km/s steps, about half of 72 km/s.
Fig. 4-1-I shows that the outer regions in some clusters may indeed be likely to show a higher quantized redshift step than the inner regions.
The inner galaxies may orbit each other a little faster than half of 72 km/s (like 37.5 km/s, as measured by Guthrie/Napier), for when the orbit-circles/ellipses of individual galaxies within a sub-g-galaxy shrink while the sub-g-galaxy moves more and more to the center of a larger g-galaxy the orbiting velocities of the galaxies may fasten (as is the case with binary stars that fasten their orbiting velocities while they more and more approach each other).
Redshifts of galaxies may not only be quantized, but possible variable as well according to Tifft, which may be easily explained with (individual) galaxies moving around in (sub) orbits in sub-g-galaxies.
William Tifft also found that the redshift differences between the arms in spirals show a quantized redshift difference of 72 km/s, which may make sense.
When two galaxies, both rotating with 36 km/s, orbit each other with 36 km/s finally merge into one object, then the rotation of this new object may become 72 km/s (or higher, for instance 2 x 37.5 km/s). Such an object may attract hydrogen and (finally) become the nucleus of a new spiral galaxy, as argued above with “Galaxy et al and Andromeda et al” (4-1).
Thus the new spiral may end up rotating with the velocity of the nucleus: 72 km/s . Thus it may be that the 72 km/s redshift periodicity of galaxies in clusters also shows up as a 72 km/s quantization of redshift differences between the arms in spirals.
As mentioned: galaxies orbiting each other and going to each other may speed up their orbiting velocities while their orbits shrink, which may cause the 37.5 km/s instead of 36. But also: when the new object (of two merged galaxies) attracts hydrogen and brings the hydrogen/stars into rotation, thus producing a new spiral, the object/nucleus will loose rotation speed. Perhaps that speeding up while shrinking and slowing down while attracting new hydrogen counterbalance, thus the 72 km/s redshift difference between arms in spirals may show up again. End May 2003]
[May 2003: Pie in the sky diagrams
The above mentioned peculiar velocities in clusters may become bigger when one looks at galaxies that are much further away. Wedge (“pie in the sky”) diagrams using redshifts as a distance axis with redshifts up to 10,000 - 15,000 km/s show cigar-shaped clouds of galaxies that point directly at us (the Coma supercluster is an example of such a “cigar”).
A few “cigars” pointing at us could be a coincidence, but about all “cigars” pointing at us?
With the above mentioned peculiar velocities of galaxies in clusters these cigar-shaped clouds may be explained. (Galaxies can have peculiar velocities of at least several thousand kilometers30.)
Conventional astronomy explains the “cigars pointing at us” in the same way. End May 2003]
[May 2003: Baby galaxies
Next to the above mentioned red- or blueshifted half's of clusters the second thing one may argue hearing the story about shrunken galaxies or shrunken clusters of galaxies attracting hydrogen is: if so then there should be concentrations of dark matter objects in the middle of large nonluminous voids just starting a new (later to become big) galaxy by attracting gas and thus lightning up the first millions of very hot blue stars in a small compact region. In other words: we should see “baby-galaxies” in extremely empty space.
Such galaxies have been found: Blue Compact Dwarfs (BCDs), small compact galaxies with blue stars. They are found far away (over 12 billion lightyears), which makes sense because big nonluminous voids often are found far away (but also because such galaxies with many concentrated bright blue stars are better seen at large distances than normal galaxies).
Within the class of dwarf galaxies, the Blue Compact Dwarfs appear dominated by a recent burst of star formation, which causes their extremely blue colors. It has been proposed that some of these galaxies (the lowest metallicity ones) there are truly young objects, experiencing their very first star formation episode31.
I think BCDs may start out as old shrunken (dark) galaxies or shrunken (dark) clusters of galaxies, or as assemblages of old remnants of stars and galaxies that have been thrown out of luminous walls and bridges (such remnants will be attracted to other remnants which then will concentrate in the centers of nonluminous voids). Shrunken galaxies or shrunken clusters of galaxies or concentrations of (“thrown out”) old dark matter then will attract hydrogen from intergalactic space which will stream towards the old dark matter objects in the center of the assemblage, thus fuelling (large, partly merged) dark matter objects that light up as bright blue stars. BCDs later may evolve into giant ellipticals (or cD galaxies) (4-3). (Perhaps it is most likely that such BCDs originate as assemblages of material that have been “thrown out” of the luminous walls and bridges in the universe, like pulsars, white dwarfs, stars, blackened (remnants of) stars or (blackened) clusters of stars or even (blackened) galaxies or (small) clusters of galaxies that have left the walls and bridges.)
(Of course, one also expects very small baby galaxies with relatively little dark matter lighting up in nonluminous voids, but such galaxies produce little light and therefore so far may not have been seen.)
One blue dwarf galaxy is found relatively nearby at 68.5 million lightyears: POX 186. It has been studied by Corbin and Vacca32 with the Hubble Space Telescope. They found a ultracompact dwarf galaxy with 10 million very hot blue stars in a nonluminous void of 30 million lightyears across (i.e. POX 186 lies in the middle of a giant nonluminous void).
They found K and early M type stars in the outer regions of POX 186, which may be easily explained: hydrogen will first get concentrated at the center of a BCD when not much hydrogen is attracted to the BCD yet, which leaves little hydrogen for the outer regions. And: the outer regions may contain less heavy (by merging; or by long (star) evolution, see 7-1) dark matter objects relative to the center of the BCD. End May 2003]
[July 5 2005: Fiona Hoyle of Widener University presented the discovery of a thousand galaxies in the lonely wilds of the cosmic voids at the 206th Meeting of the American Astronomical Society. The voids are typically 100 million light-years across, and yet they contain only a few galaxies each. Taken together, the voids fill 40 percent of the volume of the universe, but their galaxies account for less than 5 percent of all galaxies. “Void galaxies had been observed previously, but this is the first statistical sample,” says Hoyle. She and her collaborators were able to identify a large population of galactic oases in the huge map provided by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The researchers found that these galaxies tend to form near the edges, as opposed to the centers, of the voids, like hermits that want to remain within earshot of civilization. But the most remarkable finding for the researchers was how blue the void galaxies appear. The blue color indicates that they are still busy making stars340.
As mentioned above blue galaxies is what one may expect to find in nonluminous voids. However, I rather had expected them to be found in the centers of voids; perhaps gravity pulls embryonic galaxies out of the voids and towards the great walls and bridges. Perhaps that new embryonic galaxies are only to stay in the center of a (nonluminous) void when the (nonluminous) void is very big with the big (“neighbouring”) heaps of matter (in the form of luminous walls and bridges) very far away and in (sufficient-)equal amounts at the edges of the void (sufficient-equal so the mass/embryonic galaxy in the center of the void is pulled (or rather pushed, see 3-2) by gravity from all sides in equal amounts). End July 2005]
[February 2004: Another example of a “baby galaxy” may be the so-called Lynx arc at 12 billion years. In October 2003 this arc was reported79 to be the brightest and hottest star-forming region ever seen in space. End February 2004]
[August 2004: Astronomers have observed huge amounts of very cold dust around Blue Compact Dwarfs. The scientists propose that this dust is so cold because it surrounds the galaxy, far away from the stars. They believe that a dusty mixture of intergalactic gas surrounds the BCDs, which the galaxies are still accumulating, leading to their further evolution237. The dust may be old dust from old remnants of old (darkened) galaxies. End August 2004]
[December 2004: NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has detected an extensive envelope of dark matter around an isolated elliptical galaxy. The observed galaxy, known as NGC 4555, is unusual in that it is a fairly large, elliptical galaxy that is not part of a group or cluster of galaxies. The Chandra data show that the galaxy is embedded in a cloud of 10-million-degree-Celsius gas. This hot gas cloud has a diameter of about 400,000 light years, about twice that of the visible galaxy. An enormous envelope, or halo, of dark matter is needed to confine the hot cloud to the galaxy. The total mass of the dark matter halo is about ten times the combined mass of the stars in the galaxy, and 300 times the mass of the hot gas cloud260.
NGC 4555 may be a baby galaxy too. It may be an example of elliptical galaxy coming to existence. The dark matter halo then may be the remnant of the old darkened galaxy or cluster of galaxies. The gas may have been attracted to the old dark (g-)galaxy and may have streamed towards the center of the old (g-)galaxy where it concentrated itself and started lightning up stars in the center. NGC 4555 being isolated thus may be an example of a galaxy coming to existence in the middle of a nonluminous void. It may be likely that other old nonluminous galaxies surround NGC 4555. I predict that elliptical galaxies surrounded by dark matter halos are more likely to be found as isolated galaxies than as galaxies that are in the center of clusters of galaxies, because in clusters of galaxies the ellipticals are more likely to have assembled gas around most or all dark matter objects.
Another team found little, if any evidence of dark matter in three elliptical galaxies (4-4). According to the galaxy formation theory on this website elliptical galaxies both can have dark matter halos, as in the here described case with NGC 4555, as well as no dark matter halos. End December 2004]
[January 2005: Much to the surprise of (big bang) astronomers NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer has spotted what appear to be massive (what they call) “baby” galaxies. Previously, (big bang) astronomers thought the (big bang) universe's birth rate had dramatically declined and only small galaxies were forming. Three-dozen bright, compact galaxies were found to be relatively close to us, ranging from two to four billion light-years away. They were estimated to be 100 million to one billion years old. The new discoveries are of a type called ultraviolet luminous galaxies. They were discovered after the Galaxy Evolution Explorer scanned a large portion of the sky with its highly sensitive ultraviolet light detectors. Since young stars pack most of their light into ultraviolet wavelengths, young galaxies appear to the spacecraft like diamonds in a field of stones. Astronomers mined for these rare gems before, but missed them because they weren't able to examine a large enough slice of the sky. The newfound galaxies are about 10 times as bright in ultraviolet wavelengths as the Milky Way. This indicates they are teeming with violent star-forming regions and exploding supernova, which are characteristics of youth268.
In an infinite universe one expects to find young galaxies everywhere throughout the universe. In an infinite universe galaxies in general are likely to be much older than expected so far. For instance, our Milky Way is now thought to be approximately 10 billion years old, but may be much older. With galaxies being much older than expected so far young galaxies will be rare indeed. End January 2005]
The above mentioned nonluminous baryonic (dark) matter may be the (theoretical) missing (dark) matter in the universe. Conventional analysis of cluster dynamics suggest that there is not enough luminous matter to gravitationally bind moving galaxies to the system.
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 mass6. This may be explained by: the greater the astronomical system the more nonluminous voids with possible dark g-galaxies or dark galaxies or dark stars.
There may even be (much) more dark (baryonic) matter than expected so far (see 4-2).
[August 2004: >Big bang astronomers think that gas filaments in the Universe are distributed very much like dark matter in the Universe245. If most dark matter in the Universe consists of dark galaxies then those dark galaxies attract gas, which then may be the explanation for the correlation between the gas and dark matter distribution in the Universe. End August 2004]
[August 2004: The existence of invisible dark matter has been determined from its gravitational pull on stars and galaxies. Calculations suggest that it fills the Universe, making up 80% of all of the matter in the Universe, and is five times more abundant than ordinary matter. Big bang astronomers think that when it clumps together it seeds the formation of galaxies (which is pretty much the same as I suggest here in this chapter) and that its gravitational pull also holds together clusters of galaxies. In a recent study, Taylor and colleagues made a detailed analysis of the dark matter in the Abell 901/2 supercluster, one of the largest structures in the Universe. The enormous structure, some 10 million light years across, contains a group of galaxy clusters known as Abell 901a, 901b and Abell 902. Their image of the dark matter was obtained by analysing the gravitationally lensed images of 50,000 galaxies. It showed that not only do the galaxies we see lie within larger dark matter clumps, but that these clumps are connected by “cosmic filaments” - bridges of dark matter connecting the clusters243.
I think that the dark matter clumps and bridges consist of old darkened galaxies. End August 2004]
[May 2004: When elliptical galaxies shrink into spirals as suggested in 4-4 then it is no surprise that we find much dark matter in the halo of our Milky Way. Missing dark matter in our halo therefore can be seen as a confirmation of the in this chapter presented way of looking at galaxy formation.
Lately it has turned out the Milky Way's unseen dark matter is in a spherical distribution (in the halo of the Milky Way), a result that was quite unexpected115. When ellipticals shrink into spirals this is something one may expect (4-4). End May 2004]
[June 2004: The unseen dark matter rather may be in a flattened sphere129, which I guess makes more sense when one expects the unseen matter to rotate (too) and therefore flatten (too). End June 2004]
[May 2004: Thus much dark matter can be expected in the halo's of spiral galaxies. Within clusters of galaxies the situation is different. Within clusters one may expect old darkened galaxies concentrating towards the center of the cluster, which was measured last year95.
To make a dark matter map of the cluster CL0024+1654 at 4.5 billion light-years astronomers focussed on much fainter, more distant galaxies behind the cluster. The shapes of these distant systems are distorted by the gravity of the foreground cluster. This distortion provides a measure of the cluster mass, a phenomenon known as weak gravitational lensing.
The investigation resulted in the most comprehensive study of the distribution of dark matter in a galaxy cluster at that time (2003) and extended more than 20 million light-years from its centre, much further than previous investigations. The study revealed that the density of dark matter on large scales drops sharply with distance from the cluster centre.
The team noticed that dark matter appeared to clump together in their map. For example, they found concentrations of dark matter associated with galaxies known to be slowly falling into the system. The overall association of dark matter and luminous matter (galaxies) was seen by the team as very convincing evidence that structures like CL0024+1654 grow by merging of smaller groups of galaxies95. This is exactly what you expect when galaxies slowly move towards each other by gravity while shrinking and becoming dark as suggested in this chapter (4-1).
Another team of astronomers observed a cluster of galaxies called Abell 2029 located about a billion light years from Earth. The cluster is composed of thousands of galaxies enveloped in a gigantic cloud of hot gas, and an amount of dark matter equivalent to more than a hundred trillion Suns. X-ray data showed that also in Abell 2029 the density of dark matter increases smoothly all the way into the central galaxy of the cluster105. End May 2004]
[May 2003: Prominent dissident scientists like Assis2, Ghosh3 and Van Flandern5 all have modified Newton's law of universal gravitation. The modified laws show no or less need for massive (missing) amounts of dark (baryonic) matter.
They may be right, but still, if we live in an infinite old universe 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? 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.
In an endless universe all kind of equilibriums must have established itself, like baryonic matter versus non-baryonic matter (3-2, 6-1), and: an equilibrium temperature (or: low energy photons versus high energy photons, 4-2).
It may turn out to be likely that there is (much) more nonluminous (dark baryonic) matter than luminous matter.
The main difference between other dissident thinkers and me is: other dissident thinkers connect everything to a new way of looking at gravity/ether (Parts 2 and 3), meanwhile rejecting dark matter [September 9 2005: see for instance reference356, 357 End September 9 2005], where I connect everything to a new way of looking at gravity/ether (Parts 2 and 3) and dark matter (Parts 4,5,6 and 7). End May 2003]
[September 5 2006: Recently some scientists claim that certain observations concerning galaxy cluster 1E0657-56 showed that dark matter really exists. They also claim that the observations show that proposed alternative theories for gravity where it is stronger on intergalactic scales than predicted by Newton and Einstein, removing the need for dark matter, can not be right428. End September 5 2006]
[January 30 2008: Astronomers have found a dark galaxy by gravitational lensing. The foreground galaxy is almost perfectly aligned in the sky with two background galaxies at different distances. The foreground galaxy is 3 billion light-years away. Two Einstein rings, an inner ring and outer ring, are comprised of multiple images of two galaxies at a distance of 6 billion and approximately 11 billion light-years. The geometry of the two Einstein rings allowed the team to measure the mass of the foreground to be a value of 1 billion solar masses. The team reports that this is the first measurement of the mass of a dwarf galaxy at cosmological distance (redshift of z=0.6)474.
I think the foreground galaxy is a darkened and shrunken old galaxy. End January 30 2008]
[January 23 2006: The Magellanic Clouds appear to be interacting with the Milky Way's dark matter to create a warp in the galactic disk that has puzzled astronomers for half a century. The warp, seen most clearly in the thin disk of hydrogen gas permeating the galaxy, extends across the entire 200,000-light year diameter of the Milky Way. A team of astronomers created a computer model that takes into account the Milky Way's dark matter, which, though invisible, is thought to be 20 times more massive than all visible matter in the galaxy combined. The motion of the Magellanic Clouds through the dark matter creates a wake that enhances their gravitational influence on the disk. When this dark matter is included, the Magellanic Clouds, in their orbit around the Milky Way, very closely reproduce the type of warp observed in the galaxy. This is seen as evidence for the existence of dark matter391.
Decennia ago astronomers built that much better telescopes that they were able to measure the velocities of stars and gas in the outer regions of our galaxy. They discovered these stars were moving far faster than would be expected from the observed number and mass of stars in the entire Milky Way. Only by invoking a then-heretical notion, that 80 percent of the galaxy's mass was too dark to see, could astronomers reconcile the velocities with known theories of physics. Dissident physicists, however, have come up with an alternative theory of gravity called Modified Newtonian Dynamics, or MOND, that seeks to explain these observations without resorting to belief in a large amount of undetected mass in the universe. Though MOND can explain some things, conventional astronomers think the theory will have a hard time explaining the Milky Way's warp391.
Also the gravitational lensing effect galaxies and galaxy clusters have on the light from background galaxies can be seen as evidence for the existence of dark matter385, 387, 391.
Right now big bang astronomers describe the evolution of galaxy clusters in the early universe with the help of dark matter. They see it as evidence for the existence of dark matter390, 391. I think there never was a big bang, but I agree with the big bang astronomers that you need dark matter (old darkened clusters of galaxies, darkened galaxies and darkened stars) to start up new galaxies by attracting new intergalactic hydrogen by the gravity of the old remains. End January 23 2006]
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/luminous matter. Our Local Group, for instance, concentrates itself faster than our Local Supercluster. And: our Galaxy (with Leo I and II, Fornax, etc.) sooner becomes a “knot” of concentrated compact matter, dark or half dark, than our Local Group.
Thus more and more dark/luminous matter can come to rotate around a central core (the center of this core may or may not be empty like the eye of a tornado, or like the very center of our Galaxy [July 2004: the center of the Milky Way is not empty, i.e. Sagittarius A* is seen as the center of the Milky Way End July 2004]). This way galaxy-galaxies, or g-galaxies (and galaxies, see hereafter), may turn into extremely compact rotating engines or, what I call, universal engines.
Perhaps that a universal engine can also originate from a nuclear bulge of a galaxy, for instance the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy. Thus the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy later may become (the compact source of a) a quasar (5-4).
Universal engines in general may become AGNs, depending on their size (5-1). Small universal engines may not be able to end up as an AGN; for instance: it may turn out that Fornax, which may have a small universal engine, never will end up as an AGN, because the universal engine + the galaxy surrounding it, i.e. Fornax, may be too small. Fornax may end up as a globular cluster that may end up as a supernovae (5-2).
There may be many giant universal engines attracting hydrogen and thus causing giant galaxies to come to existence, or giant universal engines may come to function as a “great attractor”, like the Great Attractor concerning our Local Supercluster (5-3).
But there may be much more dwarf universal engines that originate dwarf elliptical galaxies or that end up as an invisible “attractors” to groups of stars.
The individual stellar proper motions of stars in a cluster of stars often appear to converge to a single point in our Galaxy8. Perhaps a strong concentration of dark matter can be found in such points. Strong concentrations of dark matter in our Milky Way thus may cause local voids throughout our Milky Way, like our Local Bell.
Local voids may arise too if stars are formed by hydrogen wrapping itself around old (cold) dark matter objects (7-1). Dark matter objects being absent in local voids would then cause a local void (too).
(The general current theory is that those “bells” have come to existence by explosions, which, of course, may be true (too).)
[May 2003: Perhaps g-galaxies/universal engines have already been seen: Barnard 68 may be one33. But then a very small (and very old) one, because it is located in our Galaxy at 300 ly. Barnard 68 may be a heap of many small dark objects that has attracted hydrogen (hence molecular hydrogen clouds). Dark objects within Barnard 68 may have clashed many times, thus producing much dust (Barnard 68 may have attracted dust as well, of course).
Barnard 68 lies in a local void; perhaps it had enough dark matter to create a local void, but not enough dark matter to attract hydrogen from further away, thus Barnard 68 may not have been able to form (much) new stars (yet), or perhaps it had bad luck to be in a region in interstellar space with relative little hydrogen.
I am talking about very small universal engines here, for the big ones are found in the cores of galaxies like our Galaxy and the very big ones may come to act (or are acting) as AGNs (5-1). End May 2003]
[July 2004: When indeed there are such objects like dark clusters of (very old cooled down) galaxies, which I call g-galaxies, then some of them may be extremely big. A (super)cluster of galaxies may have had no hydrogen fuelling from intergalactic space for a very long time and therefore may have cooled down enormously over a very long time, i.e. the galaxies within such a cluster may mainly consist of blackened stars, i.e. dark matter objects with low temperatures.
Submillimeter galaxies, which have extreme faintness in the optical and near-infrared parts of the spectrum, discovered in 1997, are remote galaxies with high redshifts (with a look-back time equivalent to 80% of the age of the big bang universe). Big bang astronomers think that such galaxies are likely to contain huge numbers of young stars heavily enshrouded by dust210.
Such submillimeter galaxies with high redshift may not be galaxies but clusters of galaxies instead (4-4). When they are clusters of galaxies indeed then it may be a small chance that such clusters are embedded in dust (because then you need very much dust; though, if the galaxies are old galaxies then clashing of dark matter objects may have produced a lot of dust that surrounds each galaxy, though such dust then is likely to form a disk around a galaxy (4-4) and it may be a small chance that such dust disks all are in the line of sight). Such clusters of submillimeter galaxies then may be assemblages of old, darkened and cold stars, i.e. submillimeter “galaxies” may turn out to be g-galaxies.
If submillimeter “galaxies” turn out to be g-galaxies then one expects to find cooled down assemblages of darkened stars, i.e. old cooled down galaxies, nearby too. Since the mid 1980s the Infrared Astronomy Satellite (IRAS) has discovered galaxies that are highly luminous in the infrared. Few of those galaxies are E or SO galaxies, which may make sense when old galaxies are spirals and Irr I's whereas young galaxies are E and SO galaxies (4-4). Big bang astronomers think that the infrared light from such galaxies comes from dust8, which may be the case indeed. But perhaps there is also the possibility that those galaxies are examples of old galaxies with a high number of (cold/warm) dark matter objects and therefore such galaxies may be the nearby equivalent of the submillimeter “galaxies” with high redshift. End July 2004]
[May 8 2006: Recent findings by big bang astronomers suggest that dark matter has a major effect on the formation and evolution of galaxies. Big bang researchers claim that they have observed ultraluminous infrared galaxies to be linked with large clumps of dark matter415. End May 8 2006]
One may wonder what the difference is between a g-galaxy and a universal engine. Perhaps the best answer is: the same as the difference between a young tree and an old tree. A g-galaxy is young compared to the universal engine it later becomes. (Trees become bigger when they get older, though, where g-galaxies shrink when they get older.)
An irregular cluster like our Local Group may be called a young g-galaxy, where later, when our Local Group has become dark (and shrunk), it may be called an old g-galaxy.
If later the more shrunk g-galaxy would attract hydrogen, thus forming a new luminous galaxy, then, when the new formed galaxy is in full “luminous bloom”, the (center of the) old g-galaxy may be called a young universal engine that lies in the center of the new formed luminous galaxy.
When even more later the young formed galaxy has turned into an old galaxy the young universal engine has become an old universal engine. I think the heart of our Galaxy (the center of the galactic nucleus) may be called an old (and small) universal engine, where quasars may be called old (and sometimes big) universal engines (5-1, 5-4).
In the galactic nucleus of our Galaxy one may even differentiate between the whole central region (which may be called a relatively young universal engine) and smaller parts of the central region, like Sagittarius A West (which may be called a relatively old universal engine), which may consist of even smaller parts like Sagittarius A* (which may be called a relatively very old universal engine, 4-1, 4-3).
Thus one may speak of “generations” as well as certain objects (like universal engines, g-galaxies or galaxies) being in a certain evolutionary state (5-4).
[May 2003: The Chandra X-ray Observatory has observed Sgr A* to show X-ray flares on an almost daily basis34. The cause of the flares is not understood. When Sgr A* is a very old universal engine with very many old stars/dark matter objects then it may not be surprising that objects within Sgr A*, having attracted a certain critical amount of gas, often explode. End May 2003]
[June 2004: Right now I think that X-ray flares coming from Sgr A* can be better understood when Sgr A* is seen as a former AGN (5-1) that lies within an old spiral galaxy Sagittarius A West (4-1). End June 2004]
When speaking about “young” and “old” it is not the age in years that is meant, it is the phase a g-galaxy or universal engine is in. One may compare it with “late” and “early” type galaxies.
Systems with more mass, like our Local Supercluster relative to our Local Group, thus will be systems that need much more years to go from “young” to “old”.
[December 2004: Another example of a baby galaxy (4-1) may be the Blue Dwarf Galaxy NGC 5253, a starburst galaxy almost 100 times smaller than our Milky Way galaxy located at a distance of about 11 million light-years. NGC 5253 is quite extreme as a site of intense star formation, a profuse starburst galaxy in astronomical terminology. Astronomers have been able to distinguish stars from stellar clusters; they counted 115 clusters. The distribution of the masses of the cluster stars resembles that observed in clusters in other starburst galaxies, but the large number of clusters and stars is extraordinary in a galaxy as small as NGC 5253. The starburst galaxy has a single bright object which emits as much energy in the infrared part of the spectrum as does the entire galaxy in the optical region. The single bright object is a very massive (more than one million solar masses) stellar cluster, embedded in a dense and heavy dust cloud (more than 100,000 solar masses of dust)265.
Perhaps that NGC 5253 originated from a very old g-galaxy, which had many very old very shrunken (small darkened) galaxies that have lid up within NGC 5253 as stellar clusters. The pictures of NGC 5253265 makes me remind of the center of our Milky Way with Sagittarius A and B. Perhaps that NGC 5253 one day will be the center of a large galaxy like our Milky Way. The single bright object then may have become the center of (the center of) that large galaxy like Sgr A* in the center of (the center of) our Milky Way. End December 2004]
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.
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 (7-1).
Also: a dark matter object as big as our Earth that goes through our Solar System beyond the asteroid belt won't be easy seen at such a distance.
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. So most “Earths” that (would) pass won't be seen easily. Perhaps every million (or thousand) years a dark matter object as big as our Earth goes through the asteroid-Pluto part of our Solar System.
"Earths" that fly into the Solar system relatively close to the Sun may fall on the Sun. If dark matter as big as our Earth or Moon (or smaller pieces) would fall on the Sun, would we notice it or see that something falls into the Sun? Perhaps dark matter thus can cause (sometimes, for flares (often) seem to be tied up with the inner processes of the Sun) solar flares, which is a phenomenon that is not understood yet8,35. (Of course, a clash of such a big dark matter object into the Sun, if possible, is a very small chance. But not for smaller objects, meteoroids (with sizes of 10 m - 10 km) may clash into the Sun regularly.)
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 in a big bang universe) industriously at converting hydrogen into helium they only succeeded in transforming about 2 percent of all hydrogen6. Yet more than 10 times as much hydrogen is burned into helium.
An infinite universe has, of course, no problem explaining the abundance of helium.
[March 13 2006: By estimating how many stars formed over the history of the big bang universe, it is possible for big bang astronomers to estimate how much metals (i.e. elements heavier than helium) should have been produced by stars. However, the estimated amount of metals that should have been produced according to calculations by big bang astronomers is ten times more than the amount of metals that is observed in the universe. Big bang astronomers refer to this as the missing metals problem401.
In an infinite universe one may even expect much more metals that should have been produced by stars (compared by the amount of metals produced in a big bang universe). However, perhaps there are much more metals in the universe than observed so far. Throughout this website (see for instance 7-1) it is reasoned that stars may have cores of heavy elements. Of course such cores are hard to be observed because they are hidden under layers of helium and hydrogen. Some white dwarfs have no hydrogen nor helium, such stars may be examples of heavy metal cores without hydrogen or helium layers. End March 13 2006]
A dark matter object (4-1) in space will cool down strongly (the molecular cloud Barnard 68 in our Galaxy is already only 10 K33, in intergalactic space the temperature will be lower) and will act as a black body radiator. Radiation with lower, higher and the same temperature of the dark matter object will fall on the dark matter and will be absorbed by the dark matter. The radiation gets radiated away from the dark matter at the wavelength that corresponds with the temperature of the dark matter object.
If there is a lot of dark matter in the universe and if the universe has a certain equilibrium temperature then dark matter objects in galactic and, especially, intergalactic space may cool down to that equilibrium temperature and thus dark matter may be the main component that acts as the intermediate that sends out the photons of that equilibrium temperature, which may be the cosmic background radiation (CBR, where I write cosmic background radiation I mean the cosmic microwave background radiation). Thus energy may be transferred from high energy photons to low energy photons.
Dark matter may be heated up by infrared light, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays and other radiation exceeding 2.73 K and it may be cooled down by (longer than 2.73 K) waves of the cosmic background radiation and other waves with temperatures less than 2.73 K.
[July 2004: Pulsars (6-1) and radio loud activity (5-2) may harbour cooling down mechanisms in the Universe. The Boomerang Nebula in the Milky Way has a temperature of 1 Kelvin (6-1). End July 2004]
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 a precisely set equilibrium temperature.
Higher than 2.73 K light waves thus may give energy (indirect) to the cosmic background radiation, which would explain why CBR has a minimum temperature: perhaps we don't see an abundance of CBR-radiation below 2 Kelvin because of heating of CBR's low energy photons by at least one kind of energy transducer, like dark matter objects.
There may be a whole bunch of energy transducers.
Dark matter like planets or old cooled down stars may turn into blackbody radiators.
But 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(ger) part in setting the equilibrium temperature in the universe than the larger dark matter objects.
But dust is even much smaller and may play an even big(ger) part than the debris.
[August 2004: Astronomers have discovered large amounts of ultra-cold cosmic dust in the Virgo Cluster. Up to 50 percent of stellar light in the galaxies of the cluster is transformed into infrared light by the cold dust237. The dust surrounding the galaxies has a temperature of 10 K. Perhaps that dust further away from galaxies can have a temperature of 2.7 K. End August 2004]
Or: hydrogen atoms (or free electrons as suggested by Grote Reber16) may play a role in transferring energy from high frequency radiation to low frequency radiation.
And: perhaps gravity particles may be the intermediate through which the equilibrium temperature of the universe settles down itself. If the redshift of far away galaxies is caused by gravity/ether particles (1-2) then: while a light wave is cooled down by gravity/ether particles the gravity/ether particles are being heated by the light wave. The heated gravity/ether particles in their turn may give energy to cooler light waves. Thus gravity/ether particles may act as energy transducer (too).
[May 2003: The late Dr. Toivo Jaakkola has suggested this too (see Jaakkola posthumously in Pushing Gravity5). End May 2003]
[January 19 2007: And: when gravity particles get more energy because of tired light redshift the energy of the gravity particles is put into gravitational energy by pushing for example the mass of the Earth together or by pushing the stars of a galaxy together, see also Edwards448. End January 19 2007]
Of course all mentioned energy transducers may have their part in settling down the equilibrium temperature of the Universe (i.e. the CBR), they don't have to exclude each other.
[November 2003: Also the physics professors Assis2 and Marmet11 as well as many others see the cosmic background radiation as the equilibrium temperature of the Universe. End November 2003]
[May 2003: Big bang cosmologists' big hit is Gamow's anticipation of the CBR temperature. But before Gamow there had been many others who predicted CBR with an infinite universe model.
A literature study36 by Assis and Neves points out that models based on an infinite universe predicted the 2.7 K temperature better than Gamow. End May 2003]
Radiation of a certain wavelength may pass energy to radiation with a cooler wavelength with dark matter, dust, hydrogen, electrons, gravity particles or some other substance as the intermediate. Perhaps there is even a possibility that photons of high energy can give energy to photons of low energy directly.
The question may be: How much from which energy transducer and where then do we find those transducers?
If dark matter is a good candidate then our CBR may be caused by:
The differences in the CBR temperature are 10-4 K.
If dark matter is a good candidate then these temperature differences may be caused by:
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 in the halo of our Galaxy or in other parts (much further away) in the universe.
[May 2003: The last one I give most chance, since William Tifft27 has found redshift periodicities in he CBR too (5-3). End May 2003]
[October 2003: William Mitchell75 on the other hand argues that the thermalization of all kinds of radiation in the Universe into CBR (observed by us) should be quite close to our Galaxy. [May 2004: Also professor Wright argues this way (1-2). End May 2004] [June 2004: Though, lower temperatures of cosmic microwave background radiation photons passing through relatively strong gravity fields may hint towards CBR coming from dark matter that is far away, 1-2. Also: CBR may both come from far away and nearby. End June 2004]
In fact the CBR is the answer to the dark-sky-at-night problem (4-2). Or, in the words of Paul Marmet11: “If our eyes could detect that 3 K radiation, the night sky will then be quite bright. There is no paradox when we observe the sky at the correct wavelength.” End October 2003]
[May 2004: When the CBR is caused by dark matter in, for instance the halo of our Milky Way then the solution of the dark-sky-at-night problem is not solved by the CBR. The dark-sky-at-night problem then may be solved by a combination of reasons: dark matter absorbing visible starlight, photons turning back into baryonic matter and tired light redshift (4-2). End May 2004]
[June 2004: When CBR indeed does not come from very far away objects then another wavelength may be the answer that brings us a not/never-dark-sky in a certain way. A study by big bang astronomers confirmed that the hard X-ray background is mainly due to Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs). Observations revealed that a large fraction of them are of comparatively low brightness (referred to as low-luminosity AGNs), heavily enshrouded by dust and located at distances of 8,000 - 9,000 million (big bang) light-years (corresponding to a redshift of about 1)180. (A redshift z=1 may rather stand for a distance of about 20 billion light years, 5-3.) [September 1 2005: Recent observations seem to confirm that the glowing X-ray sky is caused by AGNs346. End September 1 2005] [March 15 2006: Lately astronomers observed that the diffuse glow of background X-ray radiation isn't really a background glow, but rather the X-ray radiation from hundreds of millions of AGNs404. However, if the Universe is infinite there may still be a dilute X-ray background glow by much more AGNs that are further away but which are too faint to be spotted (so far) by the researchers as single AGNs. End March 15 2006]
Thus, the dark-sky(-at-night) riddle in a way comes up again when thinking about this hard X-ray background: everywhere you look in the sky you measure/see hard X-rays. When far away quasars outshine their host galaxies (5-3) then it may be that hard X-rays (i.e. AGNs) indeed bring (X-ray) light from every corner of the Universe and thus bring us a not-dark-sky because somewhere there always is a (very far away a “naked” AGN, i.e. AGN outshining its host galaxy) to be found. (There may also be a gamma-ray background because of distant blazars, which seem to dominate the gamma-ray sky194, 5-3, gamma ray-loud blazars may be a major source for the Cosmic Diffuse Background above 100 MeV195.) End June 2004]
[August 2004: Scientists at Columbia University and Barnard College have found that the majority of the gamma rays outside of our galaxy are likely emitted by galaxy clusters and other massive structures. The sheer mass of a cluster serves as a gravitational drain, drawing in matter at speeds of up to a thousand miles per second. Electrons in this flow are accelerated, with an additional boost from magnetic fields, to near light speed and collide with microwave light of the cosmic microwave background. These microwave light particles, or photons, are bumped up to the gamma-ray photon energy level. The gamma rays form a halo around the galaxy clusters234. This may explain the Universe's gamma-ray background too. End August 2004]
[May 2003: Perhaps that only when there is much more (cold) dark matter than luminous matter the CBR can be very dominating relative to visual radiation. Thus it can be that there is even much more baryonic dark matter than suggested, i.e. calculated by the virial theorem, so far (4-1). End May 2003]
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 objects 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 further away in the disk of our Galaxy very much more dark matter would be around.
It is estimated that 90% of the dark matter of our Galaxy is in the halo6. 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.
The dark matter in our halo may be 2 x 1011 solar masses8. If this dark matter would be around in only Earth-dark-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.
(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, I think they shrink (4-1, 4-3). So corrections may have to be made, which eventually may lead to different outcomes of dark matter quantities.)
[May 2003: As mentioned in 4-1: Newton's law of universal gravitation may have to be modified, so there may be no (or less) necessity for dark matter in our halo anymore.
Many dissidents, like Assis2, Ghosh3 and Hatch4 think that there is a “preferred frame of reference” (some kind of “average position” of all the mass in the universe) which they link to the cosmic microwave background radiation.
This may be very true indeed, but it may also become the next paradigm that holds up scientific progress. If it turns out that there is always a bigger supercluster to be found (4-1) then there may be no such thing as “preferred frame of reference” and then gravity particles can't be linked to all the mass in the universe and have to be linked to a smaller amount of mass of the universe.
This “smaller amount” may be much bigger than the universe as we know it right now, i.e. than the Hubble Space Telescope can see right now.
The reach (or: the magnitude of “our local frame of reference”) of gravity/ether may be connected with the speed of gravity/ether particles/waves (3-1).
Especially the 10-4 K temperature dipole difference in the CBR brings a general agreement among dissidents about this preferred reverence frame linked with CBR. (Perhaps the dipole difference can also be caused by shrinking of our Galaxy, 4-1, 4-3).
This dipole difference can be seen as speed + direction of our Local Group relative to the CBR8 (5-4).
The dipole difference seems to be consistent with the bulk motion of the Local Group falling into the Great Attractor8. This may mean that the CBR is linked with the matter connected to the region defined by the Great Attractor (which I call our Great Chappell, 5-4). End May 2003]
[April 27 2005: The accuracy of the big bang formulas with respect to the cosmic microwave background radiation seems to be thin thread by which the big bang model is still hanging. However, many models wil be able to describe the cosmic background radiation with accuracy. The accurate description of the cosmic background radiation is not the miracle of the big bang model, but the miracle of the very smooth curve of the cosmic background radiation, which is able to make mathematical models shine brightly because of its smoothness. End April 27 2005]
[September 1 2005: A new analysis of cool spots in the cosmic microwave background may cast new doubts on a key piece of evidence supporting the big bang theory of how the universe was formed. Two scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville looked for but couldn't find evidence of gravitational lensing where you might expect to find it, in the most distant light source in the universe, the cosmic microwave background. If the cool spots are too uniform to have traveled to Earth from near the beginning of time, cosmologists are left with several alternative explanations, the astronomers say. The most contentious possibility is that the background radiation itself isn't a remnant of the big bang but was created by a different process, a ‘local’ process so close to Earth that the radiation wouldn't go near any gravitational lenses before reaching our telescopes345.
Although widely accepted by astrophysicists and cosmologists as the best theory for the creation of the universe, the big bang model has come under increasingly vocal criticism from scientists concerned about inconsistencies between the theory and astronomical observations, or by concepts that have been used to ‘fix’ the theory so it agrees with those observations. These fixes include theories which say the nascent universe expanded at speeds faster than the speed of light for an unknown period of time after the big bang; dark matter, which was used to explain how galaxies and clusters of galaxies keep from flying apart even though there seems to be too little matter to provide the gravity needed to hold them together; and dark energy, an unseen, unmeasured and unexplained force that is apparently causing the universe not only to expand, but to accelerate as it goes345.
I agree with everything but the doubt about dark matter. If we live in an infinite universe there must be very much darkened stars, which then may account for dark matter. End September 1 2005]
Dark matter may cause gravitational microlensing.
Microlensing light curves have shown changes in light magnitude of stars, this has been measured with the Hubble Space Telescope by Sahu and co-workers37.
Sahu and co-workers explain the large changes in light magnitude by relative large dark matter objects in the magnitude of our Solar planets.
But Sahu and co-workers measured, beside the large changes in light magnitude, also very many very small deviations that were a little larger than the photometric error, which they did not explain in the article37. 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.
[May 2004: In 2001 also another microlensing event was reported110. This microlensing event was one of the very first seen in an external galaxy. It was situated far from the centre of the Andromeda galaxy, outside the stellar bulge. It had a very short duration, under two days. The interpretation of the event raised 2 possibilities according to the team of astronomers. First, the dark object could be a brown dwarf in the outer parts of the Milky Way Galaxy or in the Andromeda Galaxy. The other possibility is that the dark object could be a low mass star in the disk of the Andromeda galaxy. End May 2004]
The flickering of some of the flickering stars may be due to old dark matter (of a very strong shrunk dark galaxy or g-galaxy) moving in front of the star. This would explain why the flickering sometimes corresponds with the orbit of the Earth38.
The dark sky at night riddle often has been considered as a serious problem in cosmology6, but it is not likely to raise problems in an infinite universe as described on this website.
The dark sky riddle may be explained by dark matter radiating its mass and energy away in the form of cosmic microwave background radiation (4-2).
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 stars6. (Harrison6 also reports that already in 1744 Jean-Philippe Loys de Chéseaux attributed the darkness of the night sky to interstellar absorption.)
[December 2003: In 1823 also Heinrich Olbers argued that the missing starlight may be absorbed by interstellar(/intergalactic) matter, but in 1848 John Herschel argued that absorbing matter heats up and soon emits as much radiation as it absorbs6 and today's conventional scientists see this as the final answer where it concerns absorption by interstellar matter. But in an infinite universe there must be a mechanism that turns (the energy of) radiation back into baryonic matter and this mechanism may be the reason why there is an equilibrium temperature. One such mechanism may be: pulsars absorbing low temperature radiation (like CBR) (6-1). Another mechanism may be: gravity/ether particles cooling down radiation (4-2) combined with a mechanism that turns gravity/ether particles into baryonic matter (3-2); in a way this mechanism was proposed by McMillan and Bondi, see hereafter. End December 2003]
[February 2004: Fusing light elements gives energy, mostly in the form of photons. Above iron this changes, then fusion takes energy, perhaps mostly in the form of photons (but perhaps also in the form of gravity particles being absorbed). This may be the cooling down mechanism of the universe next to fusion of light elements (i.e. stars burning) heating up the universe. End February 2004]
[July 2004: In 5-2 I reason that radio loud activity by AGNs may be caused by elements breaking down into (mainly) HII and electrons. Elements like iron and lower elements breaking down into HII and electrons then is a cooling down mechanism too. End July 2004]
Another way of explaining the dark sky at night riddle is: radiation may be transformed back into hydrogen somehow (4-1).
Radiation turning back into hydrogen, thus solving the dark sky riddle, already was proposed by McMillan in 19226.
Another solution of the dark sky at night riddle may be: tired light redshift gradually changing visible light into CBR (4-1). [May 2004: Though tired light may be part of the solution to the dark sky at night riddle indeed, tired light may not be likely to explain the CBR, for professor Wright argues that starlight can not turn into CBR94. End May 2004]
Bondi already proposed in 1955 that the dark sky riddle might be solved by redshift6.
In the early twentieth century Carl Charlier in Sweden received wide publicity by adopting Kant's idea (4-1) of a hierarchy of clusters of increasing size. Clusters of progressively larger size have progressively lower average density, and the lookout limit therefore progressively increases. By arranging that the density of the clusters decreases sufficiently rapidly with increasing size, the lookout limit can be made indefinitely large. In this way the sky at night becomes dark6.
[October 16 2006: A new view from the Hubble Space Telescope made in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field shows objects “all over the place”438. So perhaps the sky at night may not be so dark after all in an infinite universe. End October 16 2006]
Very recently Carlstrom et al have found that the CBR is polarized: “hot” and (more) cold spots show strong polarization of light39.
As mentioned (4-2): those “hot” and cold spots in the CBR may be related to huge amounts of old cold dark matter in space which may contain a lot of dust (by clashing of dark matter objects or by attracting dust). This dust then may account for the polarization of the CBR.
A hydrogen production mechanism must be somehow somewhere at work in an infinite universe (possible mechanisms are discussed in 3-2, 5-2 and 6-1).
It is assumed in this chapter and in chapter 4-4 that everywhere throughout space there are streams/concentrations of hydrogen that can flow to strong concentrations of (baryonic) matter in the form of galaxies, universal engines (4-1) and g-galaxies (4-1). A universal engine, which can be a shrunk galaxy or a shrunk cluster of (shrunk) galaxies (= g-galaxy), can attract hydrogen and by doing so it can originate a new galaxy (see hereafter) or an AGN (5-1).
[June 2004: Recently a team of astronomers using the National Science Foundation's Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope (GBT) has made the first conclusive detection of neutral hydrogen clouds swarming around and towards the Andromeda Galaxy. Spectral and photometric analysis of young stars in the Milky Way and other galaxies show that there are a certain number of young stars that are surprisingly bereft of heavy elements. Neutral hydrogen clouds entering galaxies may explain such stars144.
A hydrogen production mechanism as discussed in 5-2 may explain the existence of HII and electrons in intergalactic/intercluster space, which may become neutral hydrogen clouds streaming towards concentrations of matter like galaxies, universal engines and g-galaxies.
An example of a relatively very small g-galaxy that has been fuelled by hydrogen/gas from intergalactic/intercluster space may be the nearby dwarf starburst galaxy NGC 1569, which is a hot bed of recent vigorous star birth activity. It harbors two very prominent young, massive clusters plus a large number of smaller star clusters. The two young massive clusters match the globular star clusters we find in our own Milky Way galaxy, while the smaller ones are comparable with the less massive open clusters around us145.
I think that further investigations of NGC 1569 may show that the 2 massive clusters are revolving around each other. End June 2004]
[July 9 2006: Recently astronomers have found much more neutral hydrogen gas than they expected among spirals and ellipticals. They were also quite surprised about the temperature of the gas, which was much colder than they expected419. The big bang astronomers think the gas is spit out by the galaxies, but perhaps the gas has come from intercluster space, perhaps the gas was produced by radio loud activity long ago (4-1). End July 9 2006]
[February 1 2008: A giant cloud of hydrogen gas is speeding toward a collision with our Milky Way Galaxy, and it will hit our galaxy in less than 40 million years. Eleven thousand light-years long and 2,500 light-years wide, it is only 8,000 light-years from our Galaxy's disk en careening toward our galaxy at more than 150 miles per second. Big bang astronomers think the cloud is most likely a gas cloud left over from the formation of the Milky Way or gas stripped from a neighbor galaxy478. I wonder if they are right. Perhaps most of the gas cloud comes from a radio loud quasar (5-2). End February 1 2008]
[February 2005: Using the Very Large Array (VLA) at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in New Mexico, the Keck telescopes in Hawaii and the Hubble Space Telescope, astronomers Wil van Breugel and Steve Croft have shown that a peculiar starburst system in the NGC 541 radio galaxy, formed when a radio jet - undetectable in visible light but revealed by radio observations - triggered star formation. The big bang astronomers think that the radio jets are due to electrons that are propelled out of the surrounding of a massive black hole. The electrons radiate at radio frequencies because of their motion in magnetic fields. The electrons may affect the formation of stars when they collide with dense gas276.
I think that the jets not only contain electrons but also protons and that those electrons/protons can fuel dark matter objects that light up as stars in a starburst system. I think that the electrons/protons are not produced by a black hole (5-1, 5-2). End February 2005]
cD galaxies and (giant/big) ellipticals may come to existence because a (gravitational) strong (big) g-galaxy may have been attracting hydrogen for a very long time.
Thus hydrogen may (have been) stream(ing) to a g-galaxy that has an elliptical form, or to an already (partly) shrunk g-galaxy: a universal engine with an elliptical form.
[October 16 2006: Within the galaxy formation theory on this website it is suggested that a cluster of galaxies may shrink and end up as a sphere of (torn apart) old galaxies. Such an old cluster may get fuelled with new hydrogen/gas from intercluster space and become a cD galaxy or giant elliptical galaxy. Recently astronomers have found the Spiderweb Galaxy. The Hubble Space Telescope has found this large galaxy 10.6 billion (big bang) light-years away from Earth (at a redshift of 2.2). The Hubble image shows the Spiderweb Galaxy sitting at the centre of an emergent galaxy cluster, surrounded by hundreds of other galaxies from the cluster. The Spiderweb Galaxy is stuffing itself with smaller galaxies caught like flies in a web of gravity437. The Spiderweb Galaxy and its surrounding galaxies may become a cD galaxy or giant elliptical galaxy in the far future (with or without a phase in which the galaxy/cluster of galaxies have become dark; dark until they get refuelled with new hydrogen/gas). End October 16 2006]
cD galaxies appear superficially to be ellipticals, but they have greatly extended envelopes and, frequently, multiple nuclei.
The greatly extended envelopes may be the result of the above mentioned hydrogen streams.
The multiple nuclei of cD galaxies may be multiple shrunk old galaxies (in the center) of a shrunk g-galaxy, but very more likely, in the case of a cD galaxy: multiple shrunk old g-galaxies of a shrunk super g-galaxy (which may have been an old cluster or even an old supercluster).
Multiple nuclei of cD galaxies then ought to have high orbiting speed around each other, which is observed: Doppler-shift data indicate that the nuclei within a cD move at relative speeds of about 1000 km/s8, which may make sense, because that is of the order of the largest peculiar velocities of galaxies in (super)clusters (4-1) which are the progenitors of large g-galaxies on this website (4-1).
Nuclei in cD galaxies may be old QSOs that have stopped showing AGN activity (5-3), or rather: may be old QSOs that became normal galaxies that formed a cluster which later shrunk into a g-galaxy, thus originating the multiple nuclei in the center of cD galaxy.
[June 13 2005: The spiral galaxy M83 may harbour two colossal “black holes” instead of the usual one, new observations suggest. But if it does, big bang astronomers are mystified as to how the second “black hole” got there without ruining the galaxy's spiral structure339.
If spirals descend from elliptical galaxies as mentioned hereafter then they “inherit” the multiple nuclei of the ellipticals. (Big bang astronomers think that ellipticals come to existence by the merging of two spiral galaxies.) End June 13 2005]
cD galaxies are located at the centers of clusters, which may make sense, because one is likely to find the strongest g-galaxies/universal engines at the centers of clusters.
cD galaxies may shrink into giant ellipticals, which are, after cD galaxies, the galaxies of the largest magnitude. Also giant ellipticals are located at the centers of clusters and also giant ellipticals have multiple nuclei.
Though, ellipticals may also originate from universal engines (or: a shrunk galaxy or a shrunk g-galaxy/shrunk cluster) without a “cD” phase.
[July 2004: There may be another reason why we find cD galaxies and giant ellipticals at the centers of clusters. Gas from intercluster space may flow into clusters. Galaxies in the center then will get hydrogen coming from all sides which may enrich the galaxy in the center of the cluster from all sides, thus no spiral comes to existence (with spiral formation as mentioned in 4-3) in the center of the cluster, the elliptical remains an elliptical with no or hardly a dark matter halo because all darkened stars are fed with hydrogen (coming from all sides). Spiral galaxies that are not in the center of clusters may be fed with hydrogen/gas coming from one side (gas from outside the clusters streaming towards the center) and therefore may become spirals as mentioned in 4-3. End July 2004]
The diameters of cD galaxies range up to 2000 kpc where the diameters of ellipticals range up to 200 kpc. cD galaxies may therefore too be progenitors of (at least some) giant elliptical galaxies.
[May 2003: G-galaxies that have turned dark may be very stable systems (compared to luminous galaxies that are changing relatively fast because luminous stars burn away mass) that endure for a very long time and thus it may be that the amount of luminous (baryonic) matter in the universe is very small compared to the amount of nonluminous/dark (baryonic) matter. But: in a universe with an ether (or ethers if it turns out that there are even smaller particles to be found than gravity particles, see 3-1) the total (luminous matter and dark matter) amount of baryonic matter may be very small compared to the amount of non-baryonic matter (4-2).
So there may be a good reason why nonluminous voids in the universe keep “quiet” (because of stable enduring “silent”/dark g-galaxies. But perhaps one day we'll find ways that enable us to observe (thermal blackbody radio waves emitting?) g-galaxies in nonluminous voids.
[July 2004: Such galaxies may have been found: submillimeter galaxies (4-1). End July 2004]
On the other hand, though, I more and more think that galaxies, clusters, superclusters, super-superclusters, etc. are shrinking continuously while attracting hydrogen continuously, i.e. galaxies, clusters, etc., but also old (dark) galaxies and g-galaxies may (as good as) always be at least a little luminous (for there will always be a few stars shining. My guess is now that big non-luminous voids will appear to be less non-luminous, i.e. weak (visible light) sources may come to the front when one takes a better sharper look. End May 2003]
[July 2004: G-galaxies are likely to have a lot of dust, so visible light sources may not be likely to be found after all. End July 2004]
G-galaxies that have turned dark may be very stable systems, but when after extremely many years enough hydrogen (and other elements, like helium and metals) has been attracted to a g-galaxy and the hydrogen starts concentrating towards the g-galaxy and thus stars are born and a new cD galaxy (or a large elliptical galaxy, which perhaps may not necessarily always be proceeded by a cD galaxy) comes to existence, then finally the g-galaxy may contract to a central core because of new infalling hydrogen and stars (that have a certain “infalling” momentum).
And: if the g-galaxy attracts mass from outside then this will cost energy which may reduce the orbiting speeds in the g-galaxy which then contracts faster. Also: gas (and, perhaps, dust) falling into a g-galaxy may cause stronger inertial forces (I don't mean inertial forces by gravity here), thus reducing the orbiting speed too.
A big nonluminous void may have a big g-galaxy at its center with one or more huge universal engines, or: dark (shrunk) g-galaxies.
Thus it may not be surprising that the center of the regular super Coma cluster has two large elliptical galaxies that lie near the center, about which the other galaxies seem to concentrate: the two large ellipticals may have originated from strong universal engines that have descended from one or two shrunk g-galaxies.
Other rich regular clusters, such as A2199, are dominated by cD galaxies.
Closer to the center of a g-galaxy more old galaxies/dark matter objects will be concentrated and around those objects hydrogen will concentrate itself until stars light up in starbursts. Such a center thus may light up as a Blue Compact Dwarf (4-1), which later may evolve into a giant elliptical (or cD galaxy). Thus the centers of (giant) ellipticals may become very bright.
[May 8 2006: XMM-Newton observations of the galaxy cluster RX J1416.5+2315, show a cloud of hot gas emitting X-rays. The cloud, reaching temperatures of about 50 million degrees, extend over 3.5 million light years and surround a giant elliptical galaxy. Big bang astronomers believe the elliptical to have grown to its present size by cannibalizing its neighbours and therefore think that the elliptical is a very old galaxy and therefore call the elliptical a fossil galaxy. But there is a problem for big bang astronomers: they don't know how the elliptical and cluster could have formed, because in their models is too little time for the “fossils” to have formed. Only about two percent of the mass in the cluster was found to be in the form of stars in galaxies, 15 percent is in the form of hot gas emitting X-rays. The major contributor to the mass of the system is invisible dark matter, which gravitationally binds the other components416. Within an infinite universe an old cluster may have darkened, explaining the large amount of dark matter, and attracted massive gas from intercluster space, explaining the large amount of gas. Much old galaxies in the old cluster may have merged in the center of the galaxy where attracted gas then may have lighted up a new elliptical. End May 8 2006]
[July 24 2007: The origin of a bright arc of tenuous gas at 170 million degree Celsius extending over two million light years in a massive galaxy cluster is a puzzle for big bang astronomers458. Perhaps this puzzle can be solved when one thinks of an infinite universe in which old shrunken galaxies concentrate themselves, thus slowly attracting giant heaps of gas from the surrounding universe by gravity. Heaps of gas that light up as stars when concentrated and thus heating up other (still tenuous) nearby gas. End July 24 2007]
There may be a lot of heavy elements in the universal engine or the center of an elliptical (heavy elements in the form of dark matter objects and in the form of dust originated by clashing of dark matter objects) but not outside the universal engine/center of an elliptical, which may account for the low heavy element content in the stars of ellipticals and the low dust concentration in ellipticals. (One has to take in mind here, though, that the outer regions of stars probably are not representative for the (overall) element content of stars, see 7-1).
[July 2004: Elliptical galaxies can have dust inside, which may be explained by an old g-galaxy (4-3). End July 2004]
When occasionally there is a little more dark matter/dust somewhere in an elliptical galaxy then Population I stars can come to existence in that part of the elliptical, which may explain the existence of Population I stars (sometimes) in ellipticals.
[June 2004: Elliptical galaxies shine with the diffuse, reddish glow normally associated with Population II stars, i.e. what I see as stars that have originated from relatively small dark matter objects. But (larger) ellipticals can have swallowed an old (darkened) dwarf elliptical that has blackened Population II stars, i.e. larger dark matter objects (that can clash and therefore such an old dark dwarf elliptical is likely to have a lot of dust, i.e. heavy elements). This then may be the reason why astronomers have identified a huge number of globular clusters with hot(ter) metal-rich stars inside the elliptical galaxy NGC 4365), much to their surprise199. End June 2004] [July 2004: But also dust remnants of the old g-galaxy that originated the elliptical may bring metal-rich stars. End July 2004]
Perhaps that a (less concentrated) more-disk shaped old big g-galaxy may turn in a (more diffuse) cD galaxy by attracting hydrogen where a (stronger concentrated) more-sphere shaped old big g-galaxy may turn into a (more concentrated giant) elliptical by attracting hydrogen (5-3).
In an eternal universe the “15 billion years limit” is gone and thus elliptical galaxies can take as much time as they want to turn themselves into spirals, which may bring back the Hubble fork.
Depending on the mass and rotation of the universal engine (4-1) in its center an elliptical galaxy may turn into a spiral galaxy.
The rotating universal engine slowly may bring the attracted matter into rotation. Thus elliptical galaxies already may rotate around their axes (very slowly). Little by little the universal engine in the nucleus of the galaxy brings the whole galaxy more and more into rotation until the galaxy more and more transforms from a more sphere shaped galaxy into a more disk shaped galaxy. Gravitational forces may cause stars, dark matter and hydrogen to flow into certain “rivers” of matter (rotating the nuclear bulge while slowly flowing to the nuclear bulge), thus accounting for the spiral arms of the galaxy.
Meanwhile the galaxy shrinks and more and more stars turn into dark matter objects (which will partly light up again as Population I stars, see 7-1). Thus ellipticals may slowly transform into spirals. The nuclei, i.e. universal engines, in spirals then are, of course, likely to have faster rotation than the spiral arms of the galaxies.
[September 3 2005: Seen in visible light NGC 4625, a relatively nearby galaxy, only showes a diffuse halo, with a hint of spiral arms. But in the ultraviolet gaze of NASA's Galaxy Evolution Explorer, it clearly has vast spiral arms which extend four times the size of the galaxy's core. The galaxy therefore puzzles big bang astronomers348.
NGC 4625 may be an example of an elliptical that is changing into a spiral galaxy. End September 3 2005]
[May 2004: It remains to be seen whether or not elliptical galaxies really flatten when they turn into spiral galaxies. Perhaps they only appear to flatten, while in reality the flow of gas within the galaxy brings the luminous part of the galaxy into a spiral shape (4-4). End May 2004]
Spirals thus may be older galaxies than ellipticals, though it depends on the magnitude of the galaxies: smaller ellipticals generally may turn into spirals sooner and so a giant elliptical may be older than a relatively small spiral.
Elliptical galaxies may be young and therefore spherical. They may be more shaped by gravitational attraction by the universal engine in the center of the galaxy. Only later the rotation of the universal engine may get more grip on the elliptical galaxy, which then turns into a spiral. (Perhaps ellipticals don't necessarily (always) have to be progenitors of spirals, see 5-3.)
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. This may be the reason why spiral galaxies do not exhibit the great range of masses and sizes of the elliptical galaxies (4-4).
[July 2004: The elliptical will shrink, but also: I think now that gas flowing towards the nucleus within a disk of gas in the elliptical brings the spiral arms where the rest of the rest of the elliptical becomes the dark matter halo of the future spiral (4-3). End July 2004]
As with (giant) ellipticals and cD galaxies the cores of spiral galaxies often have multiple (smaller) nuclei, as is the case in our Galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy (4-3).
The nuclei of the galactic center of our Galaxy should have lost very much momentum by bringing all the matter of our Galaxy into rotation, thus creating the spiral structure.
Thus the nuclei (like Sagittarius A and B, who consist of multiple nuclei themselves) of the galactic center of our Galaxy ought to have lost much of the orbiting speed about the very center of the Galaxy).
Perhaps ellipticals slowly adjust themselves to the enormous rotating power that is in their core: the universal engine that may attract hydrogen gas, dust and dark matter from outside the (old) elliptical (outboard material, 4-4), while at the same time it may attract Population II stars, concentrated hydrogen, dust and dark matter (like black dwarfs) from inside the (old) elliptical (inboard material).
Thus the nuclear bulge, spiral arms and the halo of spiral galaxies may originate, with more inboard material in the nuclear bulge, less inboard material in the spiral arms and hardly or not at all inboard material in the halo.
Universal engines may solve the problems with understanding the spiral structure of spirals, for the mechanism that “drives” a spiral galaxy is not understood so far8.
One may argue: suppose you have a large amount of dark matter that does not rotate or that hardly rotates (a big universal “engine” without rotation), then this could cause an elliptical to come to existence and then the elliptical won't start to rotate and hence won't become a spiral later.
I don't consider it as likely to happen, for a large amount of dark matter that does not (strongly) rotate may be “doomed”. It may explode as a supernovae (4-4, 5-2).
Though: a pulsar (6-1) or a white dwarf (6-2) that has left a galaxy may have slow rotation and assemble hydrogen (and small dark matter objects), thus originating a small galaxy or a globular cluster (4-3, 4-4).
One may question why we see giant ellipticals in the centers of superclusters, why have they not yet turned into spirals? Giant ellipticals may need more time to change into spirals.
The universal engine rotating in the center of the elliptical galaxy is attracting and starting the rotation of 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 and which are “pulling” at the giant elliptical, which then may shrink less fast. This “pulling” is gravitational shielding (3-2), prohibiting a central galaxy from (strong) shrinking (4-3).
Thus it may take a very long time for a giant elliptical to speed up its rotation rate. (Giant ellipticals may already rotate, but very slowly.) This may be part of the reason why elliptical galaxies are often found in the densest cluster cores of superclusters, i.e. why they have not turned into spirals yet.
The clusters/galaxies in the space region close to us may all be of a certain “generation” (4-3, 5-4) of clusters/galaxies that have originated from an enormous old g-galaxy. Thus perhaps further away we see more spirals in the middle of clusters. But then: big spirals in the middle of clusters, originating from giant ellipticals, may have needed so much time to become a spiral at last, that by then the cluster has shrunk and all cluster galaxies surrounding the old giant have (completely or partly) darkened and approached the old elliptical, which by then has become a spiral, and hence we do not see a cluster, we only see a giant spiral (with a few small galaxies surrounding it). This spiral may have become a Seyfert galaxy by then (5-1).
Perhaps young ellipticals are more sphere-like when the g-galaxy in the core is more sphere-like and perhaps young ellipticals are more flattened when the g-galaxy in the core is more flattened (5-3).
Thus perhaps the form of a young elliptical may be spherical (E0/E3) as well as (more) flattened (E3/E7).
The shape of an elliptical may depend on:
Our Galaxy has an expended disk with gas and stars and in the direction of the galactic plane the spatial density of the stars increases and their metal abundance rises8.
This may be due to the “grip” the rotation of the center of our Galaxy has on gas, stars and dust, which are attracted to the core of our Galaxy. [July 2004: In an elliptical a disk of dust has been discovered, which may be due to the old g-galaxy that originated the elliptical (4-3). So perhaps that remnants of the old g-galaxy that originated our Milky Way can be responsible too for a higher metal abundance in the direction of the galactic plane. End July 2004]
Observations have shown that the greater the angular momentum of a spiral galaxy the more flattened the galaxy8, which is easy to understand with a central universal engine causing the momentum and directing the shape of a galaxy.
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 which will thus flatten the galaxy more.
The flatness of a galaxy may also 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 (4-3).
[February 13 2006: New Chandra observations of spiral galaxy NGC 5746 have revealed a large halo of hot gas surrounding the optical disk of the galaxy. This halo extends for more than 60,000 light years, but the galaxy itself doesn't seem to show any sign of active star formation. Therefore the researchers think it is not likely that the galaxy has spit out the gas. Big bang researchers think that the hot gas is probably from the gradual inflow of intergalactic material400.
The gas may come from intergalactic space as explained throughout this website (4-3). The gas halo has the same shape as dark matter haloes which researchers think they have found around an elliptical galaxy, i.e. in the form of a sphere (4-1). With dark matter in the haloes in the form of old darkened stars it would be logical if the gas is attracted to the dark matter and so it may be explained why gas haloes have the same shape as dark matter haloes. End February 13 2006]
Population II stars and hydrogen clouds may go to the center, thus creating the (spherical) nuclear bulge of the galaxy with Population II stars (a part of the Population II stars may have become Population I stars by sucking in dust) and newly created O and OB stars that may originate from old cooled down white dwarfs that have assembled new hydrogen, thus becoming luminous stars again (6-2).
At the same time the outer parts of the (old elliptical) galaxy may flatten because those parts adjust themselves to the rotating universal engine in the core of the galaxy.
[May 2003: Much of the shape of our Galaxy, like the nuclear bulge, may have been determined long ago by old dark matter, i.e. old galaxies, that may have formed the nuclear bulge (4-1, 4-3). This dark matter, i.e. dark matter objects, then may have lighted up as new stars by new infalling hydrogen.
For several years astronomers have noted that the masses of (supermassive) “black holes” are directly proportional to the sizes of central bulges of stars in galaxies. This led to the speculation that formation of the black holes and of the stars are somehow related to each other. Scientists hypothesized that gas being drawn towards a galaxy's central “black hole” is the same gas from which large numbers of stars are forming40. This is, of course, exactly what this webpage is about, but then with a universal engine instead of a (supermassive) “black hole”.
Studies of more-nearby galaxies supported such speculation, but the question remained whether the idea could be applied to galaxies very far away. New observation gives strong support to the idea that large numbers of stars are forming in far away galaxies at the same time that their central “black holes” are pulling in additional mass40.
Large numbers of Blue Compact Dwarfs are seen very far away (4-1). I think that in such galaxies one will indeed see massive star formation while new mass is pulled in by the universal engine. End May 2003]
[May 2004: One of the for conventional scientists most remarkable discoveries of recent years has been the demonstration that every large galaxy harbors, at its core, a (what they think is a) black hole. The mass of the central black holes is very closely related to the properties of the galaxy in which it is embedded, which implies for big bang astronomers that the formation of the black hole is intimately entwined with that of its galaxy, but the nature of this link remains obscure for them98.
By searching for tell tale features in the spectra of more than 120,000 galaxies, a team of astronomers concluded that more than 20,000 of them contain black holes that are currently growing. The growth rate of the black hole was inferred from the strength of characteristic emission lines known to be correlated with how much material is falling onto the very center of the galaxy, which is, for them, a black hole98.
These, by big bang astronomers called, “growing black holes” are located almost exclusively in galaxies more massive than the Milky Way. Massive galaxies where “black hole growth” is currently weak or absent typically have the structure and star content of old elliptical galaxies, which finished making stars long ago, the big bang researchers explained. Galaxies where “black hole growth” is currently strong have similar mass and structure, but show evidence for substantial recent star formation98.
Large galaxies have large universal engines (4-1) which are mistakenly looked at by big bang astronomers as black holes. Galaxies with recent star formation are galaxies that have much gas flowing to their centers, so there will also be gas flowing to the very center of the galaxy, the universal engine.
In recent years a number of studies have revealed that the innermost centers of giant elliptical galaxies - the inner 1 percent - have no stars. Big bang astronomers suspect that massive black holes are responsible for this, gravitationally hurling away any stars that venture too near and devouring the stars that come in really close. This scouring phenomenon then would tend to dim the centers of giant elliptical galaxies, which runs counter to the trend that bigger galaxies tend to have brighter centers103.
If the innermost centers of giant elliptical galaxies indeed have no stars then this may be explained by a very fast rotating core of dark matter objects of an old shrunken galaxy or cluster of galaxies that brings hydrogen that comes close by into fast rotation around the core, thus not letting hydrogen fall on the dark matter objects in the core and thus preventing star formation.
Later, when the elliptical has turned into a spiral galaxy the rotation of the core may have diminished because much of its rotational momentum has gone into the rotation of the spiral, i.e. the core has brought the elliptical into rotation and by doing so the core has started to rotate slower itself. So then hydrogen may start to fall into the core and star formation then may take place within the core of the galaxy that has become a spiral galaxy, or: the very core has shrunken into an object like Sagittarius A* (4-1) that is surrounded by a (also) shrunken larger center of the original giant elliptical galaxy where star formation does take place. When finally the rotation becomes very slow a spiral may turn into a LINER (5-3) (though, the origin of LINER qualities may rather come from a (much) larger part of the center of the original giant elliptical). End May 2004]
[February 26 2005: Giant elliptical galaxies often have or have had AGNs in their centers. Such AGNs can blow away gas from the center which then may account for the absence of stars in the innermost centers of giant elliptical galaxies283. End February 26 2005]
With the concept of an elliptical turning into a spiral galaxy it may be explained why the halo of our Galaxy turns around much slower than the spiral arms of our Galaxy: being further away from the core (and with mass that comes from much further away out of intergalactic space) the halo of a spiral needs more time to adjust its rotation rate to the rotation of the universal engine in the core of the nuclear bulge of a spiral than the spiral arms of a spiral.
[May 2004: Measurements by astronomers have given a strong indication that the halos of galaxies are flattened, like a rubber ball compressed to half its size88.
Also halos may be rotating and therefore halos too may flatten. Though, there are also reports that the Milky Way's dark matter is in spherical distribution115 (4-4). End May 2004]
[June 2004: When a cluster of galaxies can turn into a dark g-galaxy (4-1) which can shrink and eventually attract hydrogen from intergalactic space and thus originate an elliptical galaxy than such g-galaxies are likely to flatten like ellipticals may flatten into spirals as described here. Such flattened g-galaxies then may have a lot of clashing dark matter objects and thus produce large amounts of dust in a disk (i.e. the flattened old shrunken g-galaxy) within an elliptical galaxy.
NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has captured in unprecedented detail a parallelogram-shaped structure of dust within the massive elliptical galaxy Centaurus A. Big bang astronomers explain the geometric shape of the dust by using a model that describes a flat spiral galaxy falling into an elliptical galaxy and becoming twisted and warped in the process. The folds in the warped disc, when viewed nearly edge on, then take on the appearance of a parallelogram173.
I think that the parallelogram-shaped structure of dust in Centaurus A is the remnant (inboard dust, 4-4) of the old g-galaxy that originated Centaurus A (see also 4-4 for dark galaxies/g-galaxies remnants in the from of dust). The disk may indeed be warped, thus accounting for the parallelogram-shaped structure. Such warping then may be explained for the same reasons as with the warped disk in the center of the Circinus galaxy (4-4). End June 2004]
[July 2004: When an old g-galaxy can be inside an elliptical galaxy in the form of disk of dust then one may expect that an old g-galaxy in the form of a disk may be able to attract gas. Ohio University astronomers have discovered the largest disk of hot, X-ray emitting gas ever observed in the universe: 90,000 light years in diameter (December 2002). The disk, spins through a distant galaxy, NGC 1700, a young elliptical galaxy about 160 million light years from Earth. Giant in size and about 8 million degrees in temperature, the disk was an unexpected find221.
Perhaps it is no surprise that NGC 1700 is a young elliptical galaxy. A young galaxy still may have a relatively large disk inside that has formed itself around a still strong universal engine (i.e. shrunk galaxy or shrunk cluster of galaxies/g-galaxy) that brings the elliptical into rotation (thus changing the elliptical into a spiral).
Though, I rather think that the disk is what you may expect when an elliptical turns itself into a spiral. The gas in an elliptical will be speeded up into rotation first rather than the stars within the elliptical (4-3). Thus the disk of gas within NGC 1700 may be the progenitor of the spiral arms that will be formed later out of the disk. Or rather: in the disk of gas new stars can be formed out of blackened and cooled down stars (dark matter objects forming Population I stars in future spiral arms) where other stars in the elliptical will blacken and won't be refuelled with gas. Gas will stream towards the center of the galaxy along the places where most matter is, thus “rivers of gas” may turn up as arms of spiral galaxies. This may mean that between the arms of spiral galaxies there ought to be a lot of old blackened stars, i.e. dark matter, too. When spiral galaxies go from Sa to Sb to Sc there will be less and less gas coming into the galaxy fuelling the stars within the arms. Such gas too will stream along places in the arm where most matter is, which is in the middle of the arms. Therefore we may see that the arms of spirals become thinner when the spirals go from Sa to Sb to Sc.
[October 25 2005: “Rivers of gas” (caused by gravity as rivers of water on Earth are caused by gravity) will contain dust too. “Rivers of dust” can be seen on infrared pictures recently made of the Andromeda galaxy375. Of course, the structure of the Andromeda galaxy as well as the structures of other spiral galaxies too may be (partly) caused by other galaxies moving towards the Andromeda galaxy and then being torn up by the central galaxy (which may be the cause of the bright more outward from the center laying dust ring375 of the Andromeda galaxy; though this ring too may be caused by a satellite galaxy moving through the Andromeda galaxy as indicated by big bang astronomers). End October 25 2005]
Measurements by astronomers have given a strong indication that the halos of galaxies are flattened, like a rubber ball compressed to half its size. They've found that the halos are up to five times bigger than the galaxies themselves88.The dark matter distribution in the form of a flattened halo may be explained by old (blackened) stars that have not been refuelled with gas and the old sphere of (former luminous) stars may have become flattened because of the rotation by the universal engine in the center of the galaxy. (Though, there also have been reports that the dark matter distribution around the Milky Way is spherical 115 (4-4).) Of course, when ellipticals can change into spirals by blackening stars in the outer regions of ellipticals, thus creating a dark matter halo by blackened stars then ellipticals will have halos too with dark matter (dark matter halos which are smaller compared to the luminous part of the elliptical galaxy relative to the dark matter halos/luminous part galaxy - ratio of spirals). (Elliptical galaxies have dark matter halos too.) End July 2004]
[January 30 2008: Astronomers have found brilliant blue clusters of stars. The clusters weigh tens of thousands of solar masses. They are more massive than most open clusters found inside galaxies but a fraction of the mass of globular star clusters that orbit a galaxy. The mystery is that the blue star clusters are found along a wispy bridge of gas strung among three colliding galaxies, M81 (spiral galaxy), M82 (spiral galaxy), and NGC 3077, residing approximately 12 million light-years from Earth. This is not the place astronomers expect to find star clusters: in intergalactic space. Blue star clusters like this have never been seen in detail before in such sparse locations, the researchers say473.
In an infinite universe where clusters of galaxies shrink and darken and later light up with new gas you expect to have old darkened stars surrounding galaxies. Where multiple galaxies are close to each other their halos of old dark stars get together and so you get a place where more dark matter is. More matter attracts more gas. The gas then lights up old darkened stars. In such a model you expect (blue) stars lightning up in areas where galaxies get close to each other. The same goes for areas between clusters (4-1). End January 30 2008]
[January 2005: When clouds of gas or smaller galaxies approach a big galaxy from far away then this approach may be likely to happen by orbiting the major galaxy in ever smaller circles. The major galaxy rotates and so the smaller objects, like gas clouds/smaller galaxies, may be likely to end up orbiting in a plane that is perpendicular to the rotation axis of the major galaxy (the same may be the case with solar system formation, 7-1, as well as cluster formation, 4-4). This too may be part of the explanation of disk formation within spiral galaxies. End January 2005]
Hydrogen (clouds) may flow faster than dust towards the universal engine (4-3) and therefore we may find more dust in spirals than in ellipticals, more dust in Sb spirals than in Sa spirals, more dust in Sc spirals than in Sb spirals. But, of course, the reason for higher dust content in those galaxies will also be: supernovae and more clashing of (more concentrated) dark matter objects in a spiral galaxy.
Nuclei in Sc-spirals are smaller than in Sa and Sb spirals8, which may be due to shrinking during Sa and Sb phases.
It may also be that spirals directly can descend from universal engines (5-3). [February 2004: It may also be that ellipticals can come to existence without a former galaxy in its center (3-2). (Galaxy formation is basically: an assemblage of dark matter objects or/and luminous stars attracting hydrogen; so the number of ways that can lead to galaxy formation can be quite endless.) End February 2004]
[June 2004: There is also the possibility that ellipticals can shrink and become the nuclear bulge of a spiral galaxy meanwhile cannibalizing smaller (elliptical) galaxies (as well as globular clusters, both coming in through the halo; both the Andromeda galaxy and our Milky Way have been observed to swallow smaller galaxies127,164) which become the arms of the galaxies. Arms of spirals often come in two, but so do smaller elliptical galaxies, see for instance the pairs in our Local Group. Barred spirals then may be explained by smaller ellipticals coming (more or less) perpendicular to the rotation of the disk of a (young) spiral galaxy. End June 2004]
[July 2004: A spiral galaxy called NGC 7331 - a virtual twin of our Milky Way - has a central bulge, which is outlined by a ring of actively forming stars. It also has swirling arms spin outward from the inner star-forming ring213.
Perhaps that the inner star-forming ring has been originated from the old elliptical galaxy (that preceded the spiral NGC 7331) and that the arms of NGC 7331 are formed by cannibalizing smaller galaxies.
When galaxies are cannibalized they probably will loose a lot of gas clouds that stream towards the central larger galaxy. Cannibalized galaxies then will have more darkened/not refuelled stars and thus contain more dark matter, which then may explain why (the arms of) spiral galaxies have more dark matter than elliptical galaxies (4-4).
Big bang astronomers think that the ring around the Milky Way galaxy discovered by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey may be what's left of a collision between our galaxy and a smaller, dwarf galaxy219, which I guess can be very well the case indeed. Whether the arms/disk (not the ring around the Milky Way) of our Milky Way descend from an old elliptical galaxy that has been flattened or from cannibalizing smaller galaxies is something that remains to be sought out. Perhaps most likely both mechanisms can contribute to the understanding of galaxy formation in the Universe. End July 2004]
[March 31 2005: How much a star gets flattened may depend on the rotation of heavy metal cores inside stars, i.e. the mass and rotational speed of a heavy metal core may shape the stars gas that surrounds the core (7-1). The mass and rotation of the nuclear bulge of galaxies may shape galaxies. Perhaps that the mass and rotation of a galactic center may make a difference when it comes to wether a galaxy will turn into an elliptical or a spiral, or wether an elliptical will turn into a spiral or into an AGN. End March 31 2005]
Seyferts tend to be in close, binary galactic systems8 and also stars tend to be in binary/multiple systems as well as galaxies.
Astronomical objects tend to form binary systems (7-2), which may be due to astronomical systems being old objects, so they had time to form binaries.
[May 2003: "There are many examples of double cosmic objects, but the question why has not even be asked, much less an answer is attempted." Arp in Seeing Red29.
The Hubble Deep Field picture, a ten-day exposure obtained with the Wide-Field Camera-2 on the Hubble Space Telescope in December 1995, shows that 5% of all its objects are binary systems29, where for nearby galaxies the percentage of binary systems is 0.9%. With Deep Field objects being old (instead of young as thought with current big bang cosmology) this is easy to understand: old systems tend to be in binary systems. End May 2003]
[February 13 2006: Astronomers have long known that massive, bright stars, including stars like the sun, are most often found to be in multiple star systems. This fact led to the notion that most stars in the universe are multiples. However, more recent studies targeted at low-mass stars have found that these fainter objects rarely occur in multiple systems. Astronomers have known for some time that such low-mass stars, also known as red dwarfs or M stars, are considerably more abundant in space than high-mass stars. Among very massive stars, known as O- and B-type stars, 80 percent of the systems are thought to be multiple, but these very bright stars are exceedingly rare. Slightly more than half of all the fainter, sun-like stars are multiples. However, only about 25 percent of red dwarf stars have companions. Combined with the fact that about 85 percent of all stars that exist in the Milky Way are red dwarfs, the inescapable conclusion is that upwards of two-thirds of all star systems in the Galaxy consist of single, red dwarf stars399.
Throughout this website it is argued that small stars shine, blacken, cool down, attract new hydrogen, light up until they blacken and cool down again so they can attract new hydrogen, etc (7-1). This way low-mass stars can be seen as young stars. Young stars have had less time to form binaries. This may explain why most red dwarf stars are single and why more massive stars have a higher chance of being part of a binary system. End February 13 2006]
Our Galaxy plus the Andromeda galaxy is a binary system. Sagittarius B in the galactic nucleus of our Milky Way appears to be a binary system and this binary system (Sagittarius B) is part of a larger binary system with Sagittarius A.
Perhaps in the very far future our Local Group may become the nucleus of a new galaxy with M31 (Andromeda galaxy) and M33 as a binary system itself (i.e. shrunk M31 versus shrunk M33) forming a larger binary system with our (shrunk) Galaxy.
Thus in the very far future our Galaxy may be in the center of a future galactic nucleus like Sagittarius A* may be an old galaxy in the center of the nucleus of our Milky Way. I think in this respect the similarities between our Local Group and the galactic nucleus of our Milky Way are striking.
With M31 and M33 as spiral galaxies with multiple galactic nuclei in their centers 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 like our Local Supercluster need more time to shrink to small sized g-galaxies 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.
Our Local Group, with multiple nuclei in the centers of M31, M33 and the Milky Way, may be an example of an original bigger cluster in the Local Supercluster that shrunk, became a g-galaxy (of small g-galaxies: the multiple nuclei in M31, M33 and the Milky Way) that attracted hydrogen and thus M31, M33 and the Milky Way may have lighted up again as new born galaxies from old g-galaxies.
(Our Galaxy, M31 and M33, as well as the smaller galaxies in our Local Group, may become quasars in the future, 5-4.)
[June 2004: And the nuclei of the Milky Way, M31 and M33 once may have been quasars (5-1). End June 2004]
[May 8 2006: Two giant “black holes” are only about 24 light-years apart, and that's more than 100 times closer than any pair found before. The pair is in the center of a galaxy called 0402+379, some 750 million light-years from Earth. Astronomers presume that each of the supermassive objects was once at the core of a separate galaxy, then the two galaxies collided, leaving the objects orbiting each other. The objects orbit each other about once every 150,000 years417. I think the “black holes” (5-1) are shrunken galaxies or (perhaps rather) shrunken clusters of galaxies. Perhaps that in the very far future the Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy (with their satellite galaxies), the two largest galaxies of the Local Group, end up as two “black holes” too in a new galaxy. End May 8 2006]
Bigger clusters are part of superclusters which may be part of super-superclusters, but: a smaller cluster like our Local Group may have an older but originally bigger cluster in the hearts of M31, M33 and the Milky Way, i.e. the multiple galactic nuclei inside M31, M33 and the Milky Way.
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*.
[July 2003: In the center of Sgr A West, the region just around Sgr A*, lies an infrared cluster (of objects)8. This infrared cluster may consist of very old shrunk galaxies, older than Sgr A*. End July 2003]
[May 2003: Looking at galaxy/cluster maps reveals that also clusters may show the same binary systems: 2 smaller clusters orbiting each other versus one bigger cluster that orbits with the two smaller clusters in a larger binary system (the Virgo cluster may be an example of such a 2-to-1 system). This would only be logic if systems like our Milky Way versus M31/M33 and Sagittarius A versus Sagittarius B (with Sagittarius B consisting of 2 smaller systems) are common.
Thus it may be that there are always bigger clusters to be found which show the same binary systems: superclusters (the Coma supercluster may be an example of such a 2-to-1 system), supersuperclusters, etc. Then also AGNs may often be found to be part of such binary systems, that is if AGNs originate from universal engines as pointed out in 5-1.
[June 2003: An example of a system with many 2-to-1 AGN systems may be the starburst/AGN galaxy NGC 3628 which has conspicuous many (15) QSOs surrounding it (5-4). End June 2003]
I call the here described binary systems 2-to-1 systems. Our Galaxy and M31/M33 would thus be a 2-to-1 galaxy system, the Sagittarius A/B system a 2-to-1 nucleus system, the Virgo cluster a 2-to-1 cluster system and the Coma supercluster a 2-to-1 supercluster system.
[June 2003: And: there may be 2-to-1 AGN systems (5-4). End June 2003]
Of course, if binaries are common, than the 2-to-1 systems may rather be 2-to-2 systems (double binaries) in which one of the 4 components has (almost) vanished somehow, perhaps “eaten up” by its companion. End May 2003]
[May 2003: Intrinsic redshift of galaxies
If galaxies shrink they have intrinsic redshifts due to shrinking.
Arp reports on intrinsic redshifts of galaxies29. The largest galaxies in the center of nearby clusters may have the lowest redshift. As mentioned (4-3): the central large galaxies in clusters may shrink less fast because of gravitational shielding, thus (part of, see hereafter) their relative low redshift may be explained.
Arp also found that the excess (or: intrinsic) redshifts of the other galaxies in nearby clusters range from 50 to 300 km/s29. Those velocities are of the magnitude of our Sun orbiting the Galaxy. From Arp's book I calculate that the shrinking of our Galaxy may be in the order of 100 km/s. (Which would be a bit frightening, for 100 km/s would bring our Solar system to the center of our Galaxy in about a billion years, though the shrinking will probably become less closer to the center of a spiral galaxy.)
The Earth has a velocity of about 260 km/s with respect to the cosmic background radiation. Perhaps part of the 260 km/s can be due to shrinking of our Galaxy (and/or shrinking of our Local Supercluster) (4-2).
Arp found that in clusters the smaller galaxies have systematically higher redshifts than the larger galaxies. This may be because the smaller galaxies have a less strong universal engine (4-3, 4-4).
With a “weak” (and slow rotating) universal engine in the center of such galaxies the stars may orbit not fast (if at all) around the galactic center and hence may fall faster to the galactic center than the stars in bigger galaxies, which may explain the higher intrinsic redshift of smaller galaxies.
(Perhaps it becomes different when one talks about faint galaxies instead of small galaxies. Perhaps certain faint galaxies have become faint because they are old galaxies with much rotating dark matter in the center and few luminous stars left. Such a galaxy may or may not be likely to shrink fast, see hereafter.) Also: such galaxies may have many stars with intrinsic redshift, see hereafter.
Stars have intrinsic redshift themselves too: bright blue stars show excess redshift29 (which easily can be explained with gravitational redshift, 6-2), which may account for (part of) the intrinsic redshift of galaxies too.
For instance: according to Arp late type spirals have systematically higher redshifts than early type spirals29. In 4-4 it is pointed out that late type spirals have more and heavier dark matter objects than early type spirals. This then will originate stars with higher intrinsic redshifts (6-2) which then may cause the higher redshifts of late type spirals. (Another reason may be: late type spirals have lost much of their rotational velocity (4-3) and thus late type spirals may shrink faster.)
Also: massive central galaxies have large amounts of Population II stars. Population II stars have smaller heavy-element-nuclei (7-1), hence Population II stars may have lower intrinsic (gravitational) redshifts, which thus may explain the lower redshifts of the largest galaxies in the center of nearby clusters too.
So when we measure the redshift of a galaxy we may have to think about:
Next to the production of hydrogen in the form of HII by radio loud activity dust (or at least: higher elements) may be produced as well by radio loud activity (5-2). Thus like hydrogen dust/heavy elements too may be attracted (out of intergalactic space) to galaxies, universal engines and g-galaxies. Also clashing of dark matter objects may cause dust; clashing in galactic as well as in intergalactic space (this may cause rings of dust surrounding galaxies).
Not only dust, but also dark matter objects are attracted by universal engines. As pointed out in 4-1: there may be dark matter objects in all kind of magnitudes and concentrations everywhere in the universe. This may, for example, account for the globular clusters that are spinning around the disk of our Galaxy. Globular clusters may origin from old (small) heaps of (small, hence Population II) dark matter objects that have attracted hydrogen and started to “burn” hydrogen, thus becoming luminous, while keeping their original paths much stronger than the hydrogen flows, because the old dark massive objects will be less “directed” by the “gravitational grip” of our Galaxy (3-2), which may explain the different orbits of globular clusters relative to the mainstream orbits of stars in the arms of our Galaxy. (Though: the difference between globular clusters and the spiral arms of our Galaxy may be more likely to be predominantly due to: spiral arms being formed out of an old elliptical galaxy and globular clusters being old small galaxies that have been swallowed by the Milky Way, 4-4.)
High-velocity hydrogen clouds, nearly all exhibiting velocities of approach to our Galaxy, have been subjects of intense debate8. The gas moves faster (is attracted faster) than stars.
Hydrogen may stream (or rather: accelerate) faster than dust and dust may stream (or accelerate) faster than dark matter objects with gravity as a pushing force (3-2).
Dark matter (in large pieces, larger than dust which is also dark matter) may approach the galaxy even slower than dust and hence there may be a lot of dark matter in the halo of our Galaxy.
Dark matter objects in the halo and gas streaming through the halo to our Galaxy may provide a natural explanation to the current riddle why some young stars are found high up in the halo of our own Milky Way galaxy, far from the star-forming clouds in the main plane26.
Scientists have observed clouds of ionized gas around young, massive stars - like the HII regions in the Milky Way - in intracluster space, i.e. between clusters of galaxies26. Such star formation regions are very unusual in intracluster space for big bang astronomy. In an infinite universe model much dark matter as well as hydrogen floats in intracluster space. Thus star formation regions in intercluster space are easily explained in an infinite universe model.
Observations have shown little gas and dust in our halo8.
Gas and dust may be present in the halo in very low concentrations so that we can't detect 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 galaxy8. 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).
There may be much more gas in ellipticals as thought so far. The gas in spirals is much more concentrated in a disk halo and thus can be observed easier. [July 2004: Gas in ellipticals has been found88. End July 2004]
Hydrogen in intergalactic space is optically even more thin and thus may only be seen when it is concentrated enough, for instance in intergalactic space within a cluster. A (conventional) model for 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 galaxies8.
[June 2004: Right now it is thought that one-fifth of the optically invisible mass of a cluster is in the form of a diffuse very hot gas with a temperature of the order of several tens of millions of degrees, therefore clusters of galaxies produce powerful X-ray emission179. End June 2004]
[June 2004: Recently big bang astronomers have found important new evidence to support unexpectedly large-scale “galactic winds” which they consider to blow off of galaxies, altering their surroundings out to distances much farther than previously thought. Galactic winds are streams of charged particles and they are detected in both visible light and X-ray light on scales that are sometimes much larger than the galaxies themselves. The team examined the galactic winds surrounding 10 galaxies. Located between 20 and 900 million light years from Earth, the galaxies are in different galaxy clusters and none are in our Milky Way Galaxy's Local Group cluster. These galactic winds could be detected because collisions among the charged particles create electromagnetic energy emissions in the form of X rays, visible light and radio waves. These emissions are not uniform in the regions around the galaxies. Rather, they are clumpy filaments of emissions surrounding galaxies in irregular bubble-shaped regions out to at least 65,000 light years from the galaxy centers. They found that these winds have a very large zone of influence and probably a strong impact not only on the host galaxy but also on scales in excess of 65,000 light years, possibly well out into the intergalactic medium. The team thinks that the findings mean any comprehensive understanding of long-term galaxy evolution must take into account the flow of gaseous material out of, and back into, the galaxy. The team explained that such a return “rain” would contribute to the re-enrichment of the host galaxy itself and that the flow of warm gas back into galaxies is very important to understanding the rate at which new stars form. As for the implications to the Milky Way, the team thinks that the findings for these far away galaxies suggest our Galaxy has its own galactic wind that is creating large-scale bubbles of material around it. Previous findings for the Milky Way have shown direct evidence for a galactic-scale wind at a variety of wavelengths161.
Big bang astronomers think that galactic winds result from two sources: stars and actively feeding (accreting) giant black holes lurking at the centers of most galaxies. In the first case, the winds are primarily produced by a combination of the stellar winds blowing off massive stars during their youth and by the titanic explosions by supernovae that mark their death. Winds produced by these stars are referred to as “starburst-driven”. In the second case, enormous (supermassive) and active black holes lurking in the hearts of their host galaxies generate galactic winds radio loud AGNs and the winds they produce are referred to as “AGN-driven“161.
I think that hydrogen produced by radio loud AGNs (not by “big bang black holes”, 5-2) streaming through intergalactic and, especially, intercluster space is the basic thing that is overlooked here by the big bang astronomers (I guess gas can be thrown out of galaxies by the mentioned processes, but there is also gas coming from intergalactic/intercluster space to consider). Still, their results are a confirmation of my prediction that there should be intergalactic gas surrounding galaxies. But rather than such intergalactic gas being spit out by the galaxies themselves I think that the gas should be looked upon as coming out of intergalactic and, especially, intercluster space streaming to clusters (and their galaxies), thus fuelling (luminous) galaxies (as well as dark galaxies/g-galaxies) with new gas that triggers star-bursts.
Though, hydrogen production by radio loud AGN activity (by relatively small AGNs) may also support the galaxies within the (super)clusters in which the AGNs are situated (5-4). End June 2004]
[January 21 2006: Astronomers using ESA's XMM-Newton observatory have found very hot gaseous halos around a multitude of spiral galaxies similar to our Milky Way galaxy. These 'ghost-like' veils have been suspected for decades but remained elusive until now. The big bang astronomers think that the halo gas has been thrown out of the galaxies because of star formation.
The scientists say that the observations do not support a recent model of galaxy halo formation, in which gas from the intergalactic medium rains down on the galaxy and forms the halo384. However, throughout this website it is mentioned that spiral galaxies are relatively old galaxies (often) descending from elliptical galaxies. So where one may expect intergalactic gas (still) flowing towards (young) ellipticals it may often be so that in the case of (old) spiral galaxies the stream of intergalactic gas flowing towards the galaxy has dried up. End January 21 2006]
[July 2004: Data from the Far Ultraviolet Spectroscopic Explorer (FUSE) satellite were used to identify about 50 clouds of gas, or fog banks, surrounding our galaxy in every direction. According to the team of researchers the warm clouds were almost certainly part of the Local Group of galaxies. The team thinks that it is most likely that the material of the fog banks is material left over from the galaxy formation process214.
They may be right, but it may be more likely that the material of the fog banks came out of intercluster space. Our Local Group continually may be getting fuelled by new hydrogen/gas coming out of intercluster space, streaming towards the Local Group by gravitational forces. Though, at a certain moment intercluster space may be “swept clean”, i.e. in case that the major amount of hydrogen/gas in our local supercluster was produced by very strong radio loud AGN activity (5-2) in the past indeed it may be so that this hydrogen/gas reservoir may become depleted at a certain stage. End July 2004]
There is no evidence so far for much gas between the clusters8.
Gas flowing into a cluster gets concentrated and hence may be observed. Gas between clusters may be optically too thin for (today's) observation techniques, but there may be very much (optically very thin) hydrogen gas in intercluster space.
[August 2004: Gas in clusters has long been observed. Big bang astronomers look at the gas in the Abell 2125 cluster as conspicuous for its lack of iron atoms249. The gas may have been produced by radio loud AGN activity (5-2) and finally may have streamed into the Abell 2125 cluster, thus having little iron atoms. End August 2004]
[February 2005: Chandra observations has showed two separate clouds of hot gas at distances from Earth of 150 million light years and 370 million light years. The X-ray data show that ions of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and neon are present, and that the temperatures of the clouds are about 1 million degrees Celsius. Combining these data with observations at ultraviolet wavelengths enabled to estimate the thickness (about 2 million light years) of the intergalactic clouds of diffuse hot gas277.
So, no iron.
The gas in such clouds may come from radio loud AGN activity and may have concentrated itself thanks to old darkened galaxies within the clouds. End February 2005]
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 total8.
This is what happens if dark matter (and dust and gas) is attracted from far away by the universal engine in the nucleus in our Galaxy and is approaching our Galaxy through the halo.
[July 2004: Though, now I think that dark matter in the halo of our Milky Way is distributed according to the (now old and blackened) stars of the elliptical our Milky Way once was (4-3). End July 2004]
Figure 4-3-I. Rotation curve of our Galaxy.
[May 2003: See also Mitchell70.
When today's conventional gravitation models are to be modified (3-2) than calculations about possible dark matter contents in the halo of our Galaxy may bring different results (4-1). End May 2003] [July 2004: Though, I have become more and more sure about the existence of dark matter in our halo because of its former elliptical state. Also more and more observational evidence points towards halos of dark matter surrounding galaxies. End July 2004]
Rotation curves for spiral galaxies like in Fig. 4-3-II show that Sa spirals have one peak of highest rotational velocity close to the nucleus where as Sb/Sc spirals have more peaks that tend to be further away from the nucleus and which have lower rotational velocities.
This may be because the universal engine in the core attracts and speeds up huge amounts of mass. Thus the peaks may become lower because the engine loses more and more energy to the mass it attracts. Thus the velocity-peak closest to the engine, closest to the nuclear bulge, may become lower when the spiral goes from Sa to Sb to Sc.
[February 2004: Also: the mass closer to the nucleus will attract and speed up mass further away from the nucleus, thus the mass further away from the nucleus slows down the mass closer to the nucleus. End February 2004]
Figure 4-3-II. Rotation curves for spiral galaxies.
The rotation curves of Sb and Sc galaxies show multiple peaks with accompanying valleys and the Sa galaxy shows one peak. Rotation velocities in general (may) slow down when galaxies go from Sa to Sb, Sc, etc.
[February 2004: One then may wonder where the energy of the momentum by the rotation in the nucleus and the momentum of the speeds of the stars remains. 1. There is always mass further away that is attracted (too). 2. Inertial forces by gravity (also) may play a role in this (see also hereafter). End February 2004]
Velocities of orbiting stars in general may go down when a galaxy goes from the Sa to the Sb, Sc, etc. phase because the rotation of the universal engine may be slowed down when it brings stars in the galaxy into rotation (7-1). And: inertial forces by gravity (3-2) may slow down the velocity of stars.
In the case of the sole peak of the Sa spiral in Fig. 4-3-II: stars are attracted by the Galactic nucleus and rotate at a certain distance with a certain rotational velocity (= Sa-peak) of the nucleus. Further away from the nucleus the rotational velocity may not have caught up (yet) with the Sa-peak and thus further away from the nucleus the rotation velocity may be slower.
[February 2004: One may wonder why the velocity of the Sa peak goes down near the nucleus. Perhaps this can be explained by very strong inertial forces: 3-2 and Fig. 3-2-VI. End February 2004]
What has happened if the spiral is older and in its Sb/Sc phase? The universal engine of the Sa galaxy may have lost energy to the stars/matter outside the nuclear bulge and thus the momentum of the engine may have become smaller. And: the first peak of the Sb/Sc galaxies may be lower because the stars/matter at that distance from the nuclei of the galaxies may have attracted other stars/matter that are further away, bringing those stars/matter to faster rotational velocities.
Meanwhile the rotation of the universal engine may have been diminished: when the universal engine gives energy to stars in the galaxy then at the same time the stars in the galaxy slow down the universal engine.
Therefore: at the same distance from the nucleus where first the high Sa-peak was we now may get a lower rotational velocity and further away from the nucleus the Sb/Sc rotational velocity peaks may be faster relative to the first peak.
Between the peaks of the Sb/Sc phase in Fig. 4-3-II there may be lower rotational velocities (valley's) because where the engine in the nucleus speeds up the mass outside the nucleus, the rotation of the nucleus may be slowed down (for a while).
For a while because at a certain moment mass of the former Sa rotational velocity peak may come that close to the universal engine that it enlarges the rotational velocity/momentum of the universal engine. Thus we may see “valleys and peaks” in Fig. 4-3-II for the Sb and Sc spirals.
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), because: the distance from the Galactic nucleus to the point where the line starts to go horizontal will be proportional to the time the Galactic nucleus “had its time” to influence rotational velocities of mass in the Galaxy in a certain way (by “peak-valley-formation”).
(Of course, things like the strength of the universal engine and the amount/distribution of mass in the Galaxy has to be taken into account too when one tries to figure out the ages of galaxies.)
[February 2004: Of course, there are many kinds of rotation curves of galaxies next to the ones shown in Fig. 4-3-II. I have just given some ways of reasoning concerning the specific curves in Fig. 4-3-II. And: gas clouds, globular clusters (or small galaxies) and dark matter falling into the galaxy will influence the rotation curves of galaxies too. So I guess the arguing that has been given here to explain some specific rotation curves of some galaxies should only be seen as possible ways of beginning to understand rotation curves. End February 2004]
The more luminous a spiral galaxy the stronger its rotation (which goes for all spiral types), which is the Tully-Fisher relationship.
A stronger universal engine originates more and brighter stars with higher spatial density and hence the luminosity is higher (also because more and bigger dark matter objects are likely to surround/accompany a strong universal engine).
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 may be correlated.
Current astronomy explains the Tully-Fisher relationship by: both luminosity and rotation of the spiral galaxy are determined by the mass of the spiral galaxy8. This does not make sense if one can not explain what causes the rotation rates of spirals nor what causes the mass/luminosity magnitudes of spirals.
Universal engines of all kind of mass magnitude and rotation speed embedded in the cores of spirals may explain why we see spiral galaxies with different rotation speeds. The ratio between the strength of a universal engine and the amount of hydrogen it has attracted will be important too in this respect.
There may be 2 possible ways for dust to come into a galaxy:
A. inboard dust: dust/heavy elements produced by supernovae (in the galaxy) scattering dust in the galaxy; and: dust produced by dark matter objects clashing within the galaxy [January 2005: Big bang astronomers think that such a clashing has happened in the case of the nearby star Vega because of recent observations with NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope272. End January 2005] [April 1 2005: Astronomers using the giant Gemini South 8-metre telescope in Chile have spotted what seems to be a collision between two planet-sized objects orbiting the nearby star Beta Pictoris.312. End April 1 2005]
B. outboard dust: dust/heavy elements produced by radio loud activity of AGNs (5-2); dust produced by clashing of dark matter objects in intergalactic space; and: dust/heavy elements produced by supernovae and thrown out of galaxies and thus travelling through intergalactic space. All outboard dust types then stream through intergalactic/intercluster space until attracted by a universal engine (and/or the mass of the galaxy the universal engine is in), thus finally entering a galaxy.
[November 13 2006: Supernovae can't account for all the dust in the cosmos. Recently big bang astronomers were surprised to find that the globular cluster M15 contains very much dust while its stars contain very few metals. According to the big bang researchers the finding implies that the deaths of smaller, humbler stars may have supplied dust next to dust caused by supernovae441.
In an infinite universe there will be more dust by supernovae as well as much dust by the clashing of old stars or old objects like planets/dark matter objects that contain much metals. End November 13 2006]
[August 2004: Astronomers have observed huge amounts of cold dust around galaxies237. Such dust may be an example of outboard dust. End August 2004]
[July 10 2006: Supernovae may cause inboard dust as well as outboard dust (when the dust is blown out of the galaxy by supernovae). For 40 years big bang astronomers have suspected that supernovae produce dust. Recently this seemed to be confirmed when big bang astronomers found a significant amount of heated dust in the remains of a massive star called supernova SN 2003gd. The big bang astronomers think that supernovae in the very early big bang universe have produced dust, and that this may be the reason why galaxies in the early big bang universe (700 million years after the big bang) were already filled with lots of dust420. Of course there are no problems with dust in high-z galaxies in a universe that is infinite in time and space. End July 10 2006]
[March 20 2006: Messier 82 is an irregular-shaped galaxy positioned on its side, as a diffuse bar of blue light. Infrared images showed a dust halo all around Messier 82, brighter than any seen around other galaxies. Astronomers don't understand why the dust clouds are not cone-shaped, which would have indicated that massive stars in the center of Messier 82 had sprayed the dust into space. Instead, they believe stars throughout the galaxy are sending off the dust into the halo409.
I wonder if the dust could be outboard dust coming from intergalactic space. End March 15 2006]
[June 2004: A fine example of dust in the Milky Way is Trifid Nebula. This nebula, also known as Messier 20 and NGC 6514, lies within our own Milky Way Galaxy about 9,000 light-years from Earth, in the constellation Sagittarius. Three huge intersecting dark lanes of interstellar dust are silhouetted against glowing gas and illuminated by starlight169.
Big bang astronomers think the dust is spit out into interstellar space by supernovae170, which I doubt. Though supernovae are surely likely to produce dust too, I rather see the (major amount of) dust as a result of clashed and crushed dark matter objects. The real riddle about the (major amount of) dust may be wether it is produced inside our Galaxy or outside. Perhaps most likely inside when dark matter objects, coming from outside the Galaxy, that have been orbiting one another for a very long time get mixed up by gravitational forces within the Milky Way, thus changing orbits resulting in clashes.
Also galaxies embedded in dust may have gotten their dust surroundings by clashing dark mater objects from dark galaxies/g-galaxies that have come to orbit the central (luminous) galaxy and which too got mixed up by gravitational forces resulting in clashes between dark matter objects within the teared up dark galaxies/g-galaxies.
The unique capabilities of Spitzer's Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) provide a direct way of separating stars from warm dust. The Spitzer's infrared pictures revealed a big surprise: some of the galaxies (like NGC 5746) previously classified to be in the elliptical/lenticular class were found to have warm dust faintly emitting from spiral (dust) arms surrounding the luminous elliptical/lenticular galaxy. Seeing spiral arms in lenticular galaxies was totally unexpected for big bang astronomers165.
The dust may be outboard dust caused by old (dark) galaxies/g-galaxies (4-1) that have come to circle around the elliptical/lenticular galaxies (and cannibalized by the central (luminous) galaxy). Such old galaxies/g-galaxies are likely to contain a lot of dust and dark matter objects (that can clash and thus form dust). (See also 4-3 and 5-1 for dark galaxies/g-galaxies remnants in the from of dust.) End June 2004]
Interstellar dust has been found, but so far no intergalactic or outboard dust8. I think that there may be intergalactic dust, but not as strongly concentrated as in our spiral Galaxy. It may be optically too thin for current observation techniques. If outboard dust exists it probably gets concentrated when it is sucked up by galaxies or universal engines.
Perhaps this (too) can explain the big amounts of dust in starburst galaxies (4-4) and AGNs (5-1).
Outboard dust/heavy elements may explain why we don't see stars without any heavy element traces (no Population III stars). Heavy elements in Population II stars may originate from cosmic rays as well, thus explaining the absence of Population III stars; though cosmic rays may very well be produced by radio loudness and supernovae (5-2), which would bring us back to radio loudness and supernovae as the reasons why no Population III stars exist.
Also: the presence of dark matter objects may be a necessity for star formation (7-1). If you can't have star formation without dark matter then the dark matter causing star formation will always cause dust at the same time (by the clashing of some dark matter objects) and thus dust may always accompany dark matter objects (dust may always accompany dark matter objects too because dark matter objects descend from stars which may have assembled dust produced by supernovae).
And: in an (eternal) infinite universe there probably will always be traces of heavy elements everywhere (eternal pollution), thus accounting for the absence of Population III stars too.
[June 2004: Messier 64 (M64) has a spectacular dark band of absorbing dust in front of the galaxy's bright nucleus. At first glance, M64 appears to be a fairly normal pinwheel-shaped spiral galaxy. As in the majority of galaxies, all of the stars in M64 are rotating in the same direction. However, detailed studies in the 1990's led to the remarkable discovery that the interstellar gas in the outer regions of M64 rotates in the opposite direction from the gas and stars in the inner regions. Active formation of new stars is occurring in the shear region where the oppositely rotating gases collide, are compressed, and contract. Big bang astronomers believe that the oppositely rotating gas arose when M64 absorbed a satellite galaxy that collided with it, perhaps more than one billion years ago. This small galaxy now is supposed to be almost completely destroyed, but signs of the collision are thought to persist in the backward motion of gas at the outer edge of M64143.
I too think that there may have been some kind of collision, but I rather think of an old (dark) galaxy (or g-galaxy) with a lot of (relatively small) dark matter objects that started oppositely rotating the central galaxy in the outer regions of the central galaxy. Such small dark matter objects may drag gas with them and may have caused, by collisions, a lot of dust. Therefore, peering deeper into M64 may reveal a lot of small stars (originated by small dark matter objects that have assembled gas) rotating oppositely. End June 2004]
[May 2004: The distant galaxy, dubbed J1148+5251, contains a bright quasar. For big bang cosmologists the galaxy is seen as it was only 870 million years after the big bang, which they consider to have happened 13.7 billion years ago. J1148+5251 would have been among the first luminous objects in their big bang Universe. Big bang cosmologists discovered that there is much carbon monoxide gas in J1148+5251, which is very surprising for them87.
It is not surprising at all in a universe that is infinite old.
Also, within big bang cosmology the most popular theory for how big galaxies formed is that they were built up over long spans of time by multiple mergers of smaller galaxies. J1148+5215 is a massive galaxy and therefore it is very surprising for big bang cosmologists to see such a massive galaxy so early in their big bang Universe87.
It is not surprising at all in a universe that is infinite old and infinite big. End May 2004]
[May 2004: Also 3 quasars with very large redshift (redshifts 5.78-6.28) which are thought to be at a distance of nearly 13 billion (big bang) light years are observed to contain large amounts of iron111. This suggests that the first stars formed as little as 200 million years after the big bang which is much earlier than previously thought by big bang astronomers. I think that those quasars are further away than 60 billion light years, perhaps even further away than 150 billion light years (5-3, 4-4). End May 2004]
[June 2004: In February 2004 the most distant quasar (found at that time) was at 13 billion (big bang) light years. It is supposed to be as heavy as several billion solar masses and it is a mystery for big bang astronomers how those objects formed so rapidly in the very “early” universe (700 million years after the big bang). Big bang astronomers also see evidence of carbon, nitrogen, iron and other elements, and it's not clear for them how these elements got there. There is as much iron, proportionate to the population of those “early” systems, as there is in mature galaxies nearby138.
The quasar probably contains much more mass than several billion solar masses (because it is much further away). Within an infinite universe there ought to be as much heavy elements far away as nearby. End June 2004]
Population II stars exist mainly in globular clusters and in the galactic halo, which may be due to little (concentrated) dust in the galactic halo.
Population I stars, with stronger concentrations of heavy elements in their outer star regions, may have gotten more dust during their formation, which may make them different from Population II stars. This is the conventional view.
In an infinite universe we are dealing with completely different time scales and thus completely different amounts of dark matter objects as a result of hydrogen depletion of stars (i.e. for example: enormous numbers of white dwarfs turning into black dwarfs). Those dark matter objects can be big, small (also as a result of clashing of dark matter objects) and everything in between. Perhaps in a new formed galaxy there are only small dark matter objects as big as our Earth or Moon or much smaller, which may become local points where gas and dust concentrates itself, thus forming Population II stars.
Later, when many Population II stars have become dark matter objects again (perhaps after a white dwarf phase, though white dwarfs may turn out to be different than conventional science thinks right now, 6-2), those dark matter objects, cooled down, may assemble hydrogen again until they become luminous again, this time with a bigger heavy element core (bringing stronger gravitational contraction) and thus burning more fiercely: a Population I star. Perhaps also burning more fiercely because the concentrations of gas and dust in spiral arms have become higher (with a higher percentage heavy elements) in spiral arms than in the (original) elliptical galaxy that may have preceded the spiral.
(Conventional science considers the outer regions of stars as representative for the inner regions of stars. I think this is a paradigm that will go down. Professor Manuel41 did a lot of research on this subject. See also 7-1.)
[September 5 2006: For long big bang astronomers have been embarrassed by the question why the abundance of lithium produced in their big bang was a factor 2 to 3 times higher than the value measured in the atmospheres of old stars. Diffusive processes altering the relative abundances of elements in stars are well known to play a role in certain classes of stars. Under the force of gravity, heavy elements will tend to sink out of visibility into the star over the course of billions of years. The effects of diffusion were expected to be more pronounced in old, very metal-poor stars. Given their greater age, diffusion would have had more time to produce sizeable effects than in younger stars like the Sun. Recent observations have showed systematic abundance trends in old stars as predicted by diffusion models with extra diffusion time. Thus, the abundances measured in the atmospheres of old stars are not, strictly speaking, representative of the gas the stars originally formed from, the big bang astronomers say432.
I think there is even a lot more heavy elements in the old stars than big bang astronomers think right now. Stars may be likely to have cores with heavy elements in an infinite universe (7-1). End September 5 2006]
[March 24 2005: It has been known for some time that, contrary to other clusters of this type, the giant southern globular cluster Omega Centauri harbours two different populations of stars that still burn hydrogen in their centres. One population, accounting for one quarter of its stars, is bluer than the other. Big bang astronomers found that the bluer stars contain more heavy elements than those of the redder population. This was exactly opposite to their expectation because their current big bang models of stars predict that the more metal-rich a star is, the redder it ought to be. They found a solution by saying that the red stars may have formed first, after which some of them exploded as supernovae and after that the blue stars formed. Normally within big bang cosmology the stars within a cluster are expected to be formed at the same time298.
Perhaps that the stars did form at about the same time. Perhaps the two stellar populations were formed from two populations of dark matter objects assembling gas. If one population contained relatively big dark matter objects then that population may have formed the blue stars. The other population of smaller dark matter objects may have formed the red stars. Bigger dark matter objects are more likely to have smaller satellite dark matter objects orbiting, which then may cause dust by clashing which may explain the higher percentage of heavy elements in the blue stars (bigger dark matter objects are more likely to be surrounded by dust). Also: the old dark matter cluster (progenitor of Omega Centauri) may have been formed from two different dark matter clusters merging. End March 24 2005]
During the transformation of an elliptical into a spiral a lot of hydrogen, dust and (bigger) dark matter objects swirl towards the core of the galaxy and get 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.
Thus the reason why we see more Population I stars in spirals than in ellipticals may be: spirals are older galaxies and so spirals appear more blue than ellipticals. Also: much gas has been radiated away because of hydrogen burning and thus the concentration of heavy elements is raised too. And: hydrogen coming in first (outboard dust coming later, because it flows slower than hydrogen with gravity as an inertial force, see 4-3) may be a reason (too, next to inboard dust produced by supernovae and clashing dark matter) why there are less heavy elements in the stars of ellipticals than in the stars of spirals.
[May 2003: Population I stars have a smaller tendency to move out of our galactic plane than Population II stars8. Population I stars are in nearly circular galactic orbits about the core of the Milky Way where Population II stars and globular clusters are in highly eccentric orbits. And: on average Population I stars are closer to the galactic plane and show less perpendicular velocity to the galactic plane where Population II stars are further away from the galactic plane and show more perpendicular velocity to the galactic plane. Also: the distribution of Population I stars is patchy and their concentration to the galactic center is little where the distribution of Population II stars is smooth and their concentration to the galactic center is strong8.
All this can be explained by Population II stars being young stars and Population I stars being old stars. Or perhaps rather: Population I stars have been Population II stars that blackened, cooled down and assembled hydrogen again, thus lightning up as Population I stars. Old stars have adjusted themselves more to the Galaxy. Right now Population II stars are considered to be the old ones.
The bulge of our Galaxy is dominated by Population II/I stars, but it contains some Population I stars where the bulge intersects the plane of our Galaxy8. Those Population I stars may have come to existence because of gas and (much) dust coming in from the plane and getting strongly concentrated where the bulge intersects the plane. Bigger, heavier and (especially) denser (4-3) objects like Population I stars (relative to Population II stars) have a stronger tendency to orbit the nuclear bulge, where gas and smaller dark matter objects have a stronger tendency to enter the nuclear bulge. Population II stars originating in the bulge may be explained by gas and (smaller) dark matter objects entering the bulge as well as dark matter debris produced by (larger) clashing dark matter objects in the bulge. In the bulge there will be much more clashes between dark matter objects than in the spiral arms, thus accounting for smaller dark matter objects in the bulge that can form Population II stars. Also: the concentration of gas is higher in the bulge, which gives smaller dark matter objects more chance to assemble enough gas to light up as stars. End May 2003]
[February 1 2008: Radio loud activity by quasars may produce gas (5-2) and this gas, coming from intergalactic space, may fall into spiral galaxies and move along “rivers of gas” in those galaxies, i.e. the gas goes where most matter is. Thus in spirals population I stars may light up and hence the spiral arms with many population I stars may be produced. The gas is tunneled through the arms towards the central bulge of the galaxy, but when it gets in the central bulge much gas already may have been swallowed by objects in the arms of the spiral. Therefore the central bulge of galaxies may have less bright stars. (Though, it may also be because there are many different objects in the central bulge to which the gas can flow.) The same process may be going on on a higher scale and hence account for new galaxies with many stars in filaments with galaxies compared to less bright galaxies in central clusters with galaxies481. Radio loud activity by quasars may produce outer clustergas that goes where most matter is, i.e. the filaments with galaxies, and through the filaments it is tunneled towards the central clusters with galaxies. The gas in the filaments lights up galaxies with many stars, but when the gas has come to the central cluster much of the gas may have been swallowed by the galaxies in the filaments. Therefore there may be less bright galaxies in the central clusters. (Though, it may also be because there are very many galaxies in the central cluster to which the gas can flow.) End February 1 2008]
[May 2004: When an elliptical transforms into a spiral then the flow of gas (mostly hydrogen) through the galaxy may be of main importance, because the flow of gas determines where new stars will light up. When an elliptical transforms into a spiral it may be so that gas in the future rotating disk of the galaxy will flow relatively slow to the center of the galaxy because of centrifugal forces, where gas above and under the plane of the future spiral will flow relatively fast to the center of the galaxy. This means that gas most close to the rotational axis (which is perpendicular to the plane of the future spiral and goes through the center of the plane) will flow first to the center of the galaxy. Perhaps this explains why the thickness of the hydrogen layer increases further away from the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy8. (Matter can fall along the rotational axis into a spiral galaxy, as has been observed116.)
When an elliptical turns into a spiral galaxy then the gas may flow faster to the center of the galaxy than the stars (4-3), also or perhaps especially above and under the plane of the future spiral. Thus the original elliptical sphere may still be there when the elliptical has turned into a spiral, but: under and above the plane the stars have blackened because of depletion of hydrogen. This may explain why the Milky Way's unseen dark matter is in a spherical distribution (in the halo of the Milky Way)115. The (stars in the) spiral arms of the Milky Way then may have come to existence mostly or perhaps even merely because of the flow of gas through the galaxy as mentioned above (explaining why the thickness of the hydrogen layer increases further away from the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy). I certainly (still) think that the spherical elliptical galaxy does shrink into a smaller spherical dark matter halo of a spiral galaxy, with new luminous matter created in the spiral arms and with (old) nonluminous matter in the rest of the sphere. End May 2004] [July 2004: Though, dark matter halos around galaxies also have been observed to be flattened88 (4-3). A disk of rotating gas has been observed within an elliptical galaxy, which points to the here mentioned way of spiral formation (4-4). End July 2004]
[June 9 2005: Though, perhaps there is also the possibility that an elliptical galaxy shrinks to the size of the nuclear bulge of a spiral galaxy, meanwhile arms of the spiral are formed because smaller galaxies are cannibalized. I consider this as less likely because of the big differences between the sizes of elliptical galaxies and the sizes of the nuclear bulges of spiral galaxies. End June 9 2005]
[February 1 2008: There are thin spirals both with and without central bulges of stars476. Perhaps galaxies can slowly circle towards each other, thus forming a disc with no central bulge. Hence thin spirals without central bulges may come to existence. Then this way spirals with central bulges may come to existence too, i.e. by galaxies slowly circling towards a central galaxy. End February 1 2008]
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 more compression/stronger concentrations closer to the nuclear bulge) and more and more in the form of H I.
The thickness of the hydrogen layer increases further away from the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy, which may be due to hydrogen being sucked in from a very large volume outside the galactic disk.
Population II stars in the halo of our Galaxy have very low metal abundances, which may be because dust and dark matter is not concentrated in the halo as it is in the spiral arms, and: dust comes later to the stars then hydrogen (4-3). (Of course, supernovae and clashing dark matter, both producing inboard dust, will play a part in this too.)
Population II stars constitute most of the total stellar mass of our Galaxy, which is logic considering that our Galaxy once may have been 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.
[May 2003: Barred spirals
Ostriker and Peebles8 have explained barred spirals with too little dark matter in the halo of a spiral and hence the spiral arms become “weak”.
Dark matter coming into the halo may come from another place in space than the hydrogen (and dust) that originated the spiral (i.e. originated the elliptical that turned into a spiral; with hydrogen/dust adopting its flow-direction to the rotation of the universal engine in the core of the galaxy rather than dark matter). This may cause the halo to have a different rotation than the spiral arms, which may tear up the spiral arms, thus originating a barred spiral.
[July 2004: Such dark matter may be an old dark (shrunken) galaxy or an old dark (shrunken) cluster of galaxies (what I call g-galaxies, 4-1). A (dark shrunken) galaxy/g-galaxy that falls towards a luminous spiral galaxy in a different plane than the (rotation) plane of the spiral galaxy or with a different orbital velocity than the rotation velocity of the barred spiral then may cause the spiral galaxy to become barred (see also 4-3 and 4-4 concerning g-galaxies bringing dust disks within or around galaxies). With a lot of dark matter objects (triggering star formation, 7-1) and dust in a (dark shrunken) galaxy/g-galaxy it is not surprising that recently a team of astronomers found that the bar across the central region of the barred spiral galaxy M83 is enshrouded in dust and that this central bar shows massive star formation of hot stars204. Actually, I think that the formation of globular clusters orbiting our Milky Way in a different plane then the disk of our Milky Way is exactly the same thing: shrunken old dwarf ellipticals (or UCDs) that have become globular clusters, 4-4; the only difference then is that the old galaxy/g-galaxy within a barred spiral has much more matter and therefore then may tear up the luminous spiral galaxy. End July 2004]
[April 10 2005: Also luminous galaxies may cause barred spirals. The Milky Way's satellites lie on a flat circle, approximately perpendicular to the Galactic Plane319. Perhaps that the Milky Way turns into a barred spiral in the far future. April 10 2005]
But also: the very nucleus (for instance Sgr A West in our galactic nucleus, with a diameter of 3-4 pc) of a spiral may have a different rotation than the material surrounding the very nucleus (in a disk, for instance the overall galactic center of our galactic nucleus, with a diameter of 100 pc). Perhaps that at a certain moment the disk approaches the very nucleus of the galactic center so close that the disk starts to rotate different, and after that the whole spiral galaxy may change its rotation which may originate a barred spiral (5-3). Thus perhaps our Galaxy may become a barred spiral, with Sgr A West as the initiator that has its rotation axis perpendicular to the rotation axis of the surrounding overall galactic center disk (4-1). End May 2003]
[May 2004: An example of a galaxy with a galactic center bringing nearby material into other rotation may be the Circinus spiral galaxy, which has a “pancake” of gas and dust at the center: a warped disk surrounding the very galactic center of the galaxy89. The disk may have become warped because its very center makes the disk rotate different. End May 2004]
[July 2004: Another reason for barred spirals to come to existence may be gas flowing into a (spiral) galaxy from another angle, thus lightning up dark matter objects in another part of the dark matter halo (with a spiral forming out of an elliptical as mentioned in 4-3). Whether a galaxy becomes a normal spiral or a barred spiral may be understood by what the rotation axis of the galaxy is relative to gas coming from outside a cluster flowing inwards, see also 4-3. So the prediction here is that barred spirals may have their rotation axis pointed towards the center of the cluster where normal spirals have their central disk pointed towards the center of the cluster. Though, one must take in mind how gas flows towards the center of the cluster, because the gas may stream along concentrations of galaxies towards the center of the cluster (as may be with gas flowing through spirals, 4-3). End July 2004] [March 15 2006: Astronomers studying a disk of material circling a still-forming star inside our Galaxy have found that the inner part of the disk is orbiting the protostar in the opposite direction from the outer part of the disk. The astronomers think the system may have gotten material from two clouds instead of one, and the two were rotating in opposite directions. Though this is the first time such a phenomenon has been seen in a disk around a young star, the phenomenon has been previously reported in the disks of galaxies402. Thus galaxy-formation indeed may be influenced by clouds of gas coming from different directions as mentioned here discussing possible ways of barred spiral formation. End March 15 2006]
The stars and matter of a galaxy with a universal engine that is rotating too little may fall to fast inwards which may cause an explosion. Perhaps this can cause ring galaxy formation: part of the galaxy's stars flow outward with the exploded matter, thus causing the ring, and part of the galaxy's stars fall back inwards to the remains of the universal engine, thus causing the bright center of the ring galaxy.
[May 2003: Perhaps universal engines that explode in such a way can be radio quiet QSOs (in elliptical galaxies) which don't explode with a FR II jet, but which explode “totally” because they don't have enough rotation (5-2). Such an explosion may cause an extremely strong gamma ray burst (5-2), which then may explain (part of the) Ultra High-Energy Cosmic Rays (5-2). End May 2003]
[June 2004: Perhaps that ring galaxies can come to existence when a galaxy starts orbiting a compact massive (luminous/nonluminous) galaxy. The smaller galaxy then may orbit the larger galaxy in an ellipse (for the same reasons planets orbit our Sun in an ellipse, 7-1). Stars may be ripped apart by tidal forces bringing a ring of star clusters around the massive galaxy123. Gas from the orbiting galaxy may flow towards the central galaxy, thus lightning up the galaxy in case the central galaxy was nonluminous (or: a sphere of blackened stars). End June 2004]
Not only giant ellipticals can be formed by hydrogen clouds and dark matter. Ellipticals of all kind of different magnitudes can be formed, depending on the strength of the universal engine (or: old galaxy/g-galaxy) that brought the hydrogen together and depending on the amount of hydrogen available in the surrounding intergalactic gas.
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: a stronger universal engine with more dark matter (often) will mean a larger surrounding void (where the universal engine or g-galaxy originated from) with hydrogen to be assembled from and less competing universal engines nearby.
Dark matter objects that escaped from the gravitational grip of galaxies or g-galaxies may float in all kind of directions and in all kind of concentrations through the universe and so may universal engines. Very heavy universal engines will be more immobile (though perhaps not on very large scales, which may mean that quasars may have big velocities, 5-4).
With different amounts of hydrogen available to all kind universal engines all kind of elliptical galaxies may come to existence: cD galaxies, giants, normal size, dwarfs and globular clusters.
Some starburst galaxies may be spiral galaxies, Irregular Is, dark spirals or dark g-galaxies that get hydrogen “too soon” (for instance because of radio loud activity somewhere else relatively nearby in the Universe, 5-2, or because by coincidence a big stream of hydrogen comes “along”), which may bring a galaxy like the irregular galaxy M82 (though, of course, merging of galaxies, as thought by current astronomy right now, may have originated M82 as well).
Spirals that get fuelled with a lot of extra gas (coming from intergalactic space, or: outboard gas) may turn into starburst galaxies where as spirals that are fuelled with little gas may turn into LINERs (which may, later, turn into Seyferts 2, 5-3). Spirals that get hardly fueled at all may turn into Irregular Is (4-4).
Many ultraluminous far-infrared galaxies are starburst galaxies. The far-infrared emission in these sources is thermal radiation from dust heated by massive star formation in the starburst galaxy. This may be an example of dust attracted slower and thus travelling slower than hydrogen (4-3), thus accounting for the dust surrounding the starburst galaxy.
But dust may also be caused by dark matter objects (in g-galaxies) clashing (for instance when an old dark matter system comes flying into a g-galaxy system and starts orbiting the center of the g-galaxy with reverse orbiting direction, thus clashing a lot with other old dark galaxies of the g-galaxy).
A group of stars may darken and shrink and thus become a group of (cold) dark matter objects. Such a group of dark matter objects may get fuelled by hydrogen, after which it may light up as a Super Star Cluster (SSC). SSCs are young and massive star clusters that are found to form in every starburst environment, from dwarf irregular galaxies that harbor just a few SSCs, to giant starbursts that harbor 1000s of them. SSCs are extremely massive and compact with masses of order 104 - 107 MSun42.
SSCs may descend from many groups of dark matter objects (which may have been former dwarf galaxies or globular clusters) when a starburst environment gets fuelled by new hydrogen. It would explain why SSCs dominate star formation in starbursts.
[March 31 2005: The Trifid Nebula is a giant star-forming cloud of gas and dust located 5,400 light-years away in the constellation of Sagittarius. Previous images had hinted that the nebula contained four cold “knots” of dust. Astronomers knew these are the incubators, where new stars are born, but they didn't think they had actually begun star formation yet. Spitzer has revealed that they have already formed at least 30 embryonic stars. In the cores with multiple embryos, astronomers have seen that the most massive and brightest of the bunch is near the center. They think that this implies that the developing stars are competing for materials, and that the embryo with the most material will grow to be the largest star309.
Things may be different when the progenitors of star clusters are groups of dark matter objects (that get fueled with hydrogen/gas). Perhaps that the largest star is rather to be found in the center of a cluster because within a group of dark matter objects the largest dark matter object may be expected to be found in the center of the group of dark matter objects. A large dark matter object in the center of a group of dark matter objects may be there because of merging of multiple dark matter objects (or not yet merged, i.e. infalling gas may bring multiple dark matter objects together in one big star, 7-1), or because a group of dark matter objects has assembled itself around one big dark matter object. End March 31 2005]
[May 2003: Another way of galaxy formation
Perhaps spirals can be formed in a different (more direct) way than described in 4-3: perhaps ellipticals descend from universal engines that are sphere shaped (as mentioned so far), where spirals can (sometimes) emerge from universal engines that are disk shaped (5-3). End May 2003]
The most common galaxies in the universe are dwarf ellipticals (dE galaxies).
Giant ellipticals may originate from very heavy universal engines, but if so then there ought to be much more smaller universal engines sweeping gas from a smaller volume of space. This may be the reason why dE galaxies are most numerous in the universe: there will be lots of dE galaxies due to lots of small voids and lots of small amounts of dark matter, i.e. small universal engines. [June 2004: Or small g-galaxies, 4-3. End June 2004]
The most obvious difference between dwarf ellipticals and the true ellipticals, aside from size, is the lack of a bright nuclear region in the dE galaxy. This may be because dE galaxies don't have a strong universal engine in the nuclear region.
[August 2004: I rather see globular clusters as remnants of galaxies of an old cluster with much dark matter objects/burned out stars/white dwarfs in a small volume of space. The globular cluster M4, 7,000 light years from Earth, contains many white dwarfs and the entire cluster contains several hundred thousand stars within a volume of 10 to 30 light-years across240. M4 may be an old (dE?) galaxy that has shrunken and which has been refuelled with new gas. The Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy may have been two clusters of galaxies in the past that have come to orbit each other. The 150 globular clusters in the galactic halo of the Milky Way may be former galaxies (shrunken and refuelled with gas) of the old cluster that our Milky Way may have originated from.
Big bang astronomers think that new research concerning globular clusters shows that some globular clusters may be remnants of dwarf galaxies. The team studied 14 globular clusters in the large elliptical galaxy Centaurus A (NGC 5128) and found that the globular clusters of Centaurus A are much more massive than most globulars in the Local Group of galaxies. Their findings hint at an connection between the largest globular clusters and the smallest dwarf galaxies, the largest globular clusters are in the same mass range as the smallest dwarf galaxies. The big bang team sees the recent discovery of a suspected intermediate-mass “black hole” in the Andromeda Galaxy globular cluster known as G1 as further evidence linking globular clusters to dwarf galaxies, for the presence of a moderate-sized “black hole” is more understandable if it once occupied the center of a dwarf galaxy250. End August 2004]
[July 2004: When ellipticals don't get fuelled with gas at all or don't have a strong (rotating) universal engine creating a gas of disk (4-3) they may (in the far future, when finally fuelled with gas) become a dwarf elliptical instead of a spiral.
When spirals blacken they may become a sphere of dark matter objects (a spherical or flattened halo, 4-3). Such a shrunken (flattened) sphere may become a dwarf elliptical when fuelled with gas. End July 2004]
[June 2004: Big bang astronomers think that there are supermassive black holes at the centers of giant galaxies like our own Milky Way, while the smaller stellar systems are not supposed to have any black holes. Big bang astronomers suggest that the smaller stellar systems used to have black holes that were kicked out142.
With the on this website suggested way of galaxy formation there are large concentrations of matter in giant galaxies and no large concentrations of matter within globular clusters and small ellipticals. Though, (some) Blue Compact Dwarfs (BCDs, 4-1) in the center of large nonluminous voids may (sometimes) originate from quite a large g-galaxy. Thus, perhaps that there are large concentrations of matter to be found in (some) BCDs (i.e. what big bang astronomers see as “black holes”).
Globular clusters (see hereafter) and BCDs in nonluminous (intergalactic/intercluster) voids, not tied to major galaxies, may grow and eventually become major galaxies. Therefore, in the far future (such) globular clusters and BCDs may become stellar systems that do have a “black hole” in their center. End June 2004]
[August 2004: Strong concentrations of matter, 4,000 and 20,000 times that of our Sun, in the centers of (at least) 2 globular clusters have been observed. Big bang astronomers think that there are “black holes” in these clusters233. Also globular clusters may originate with dark matter objects as the “seeds” that trigger star formation as well dark matter objects concentrating in the center of the cluster thus bringing (what big bang astronomers think is) a “black hole”. End August 2004]
Dwarf ellipticals can move to bigger nearby galaxies and get swallowed, which may account for, for instance, the globular clusters in our Galaxy, but also our nearby dwarf ellipticals Sculptor, Leo I and II, Ursa Minor and Draco. (Thus (some) dwarf ellipticals may be progenitors of globular clusters, i.e. when those dwarf ellipticals start rotating a larger galaxy meanwhile shrinking and blackening, until the dark matter objects lighten up by new hydrogen flowing in the (old) dwarf elliptical/(now) globular cluster. [July 2004: Ultra-compact dwarfs (UCDs) too may be progenitors of globular clusters, 4-4, and “planetary nebulae” too may be progenitors of globular clusters, 4-4. End July 2004]
[May 18 2007: Analysis of Hubble observations of the massive globular cluster NGC 2808 provides evidence that it has three generations of stars. This is a major upset for conventional (big bang) theories as astronomers have long thought that globular star clusters had a single “baby boom” of stars early in their lives and then settled down into a long, quiet middle age. A possible explanation for the multiple stellar populations is that NGC 2808 may only be masquerading as a globular cluster. The researchers think that the stellar grouping may have been a dwarf galaxy that was stripped of most of its material due to gravitational capture by our Milky Way. Omega Centauri, the first globular cluster that was found by the researchers to have multiple generations of stars, too is suspected to be the remnant core of a dwarf galaxy. Although the astronomers have searched only two globular clusters for multiple stellar populations, they say this may be a typical occurrence in other massive clusters452. End May 18 2007]
Globular clusters that rotate highly eccentric about the nucleus of our Galaxy may (also) originate from dark matter object concentrations that were at quite some distance from the (old) elliptical galaxy (which our spiral Galaxy may have originated from). This distance may have caused the high eccentricity.
[May 2004: With globular clusters going to major galaxies and starting rotating those major galaxies one expects to find such clusters in intergalactic space too, unbound, not tied to major galaxies. Such globular clusters were spotted in 200396. End May 2004]
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 kpc8.
The metal rich clusters may have originated later when hydrogen with more dust was concentrated in the disk, which explains the smaller distance to the galactic disk and the higher abundance of metals. But also: rich clusters may be older clusters (and so more clashes of dark matter objects causing dust/metal rich environments).
Perhaps globular clusters can be examples of hydrogen clouds that started star formation with only little or no dark matter (objects). (Tough perhaps it is not possible to have star formation without dark matter.)
[August 2004: I rather see globular clusters as remnants of galaxies of an old cluster with much dark matter objects/burned out stars/white dwarfs in a small volume of space. The globular cluster M4, 7,000 light years from Earth, contains many white dwarfs and the entire cluster contains several hundred thousand stars within a volume of 10 to 30 light-years across240. M4 may be an old (dE?) galaxy that has shrunken and which has been refuelled with new gas. The Milky Way and the Andromeda galaxy may have been two clusters of galaxies in the past that have come to orbit each other. The 150 globular clusters in the galactic halo of the Milky Way may be former galaxies (shrunken and refuelled with gas) of the old cluster that our Milky Way may have originated from.
Big bang astronomers think that new research concerning globular clusters shows that some globular clusters may be remnants of dwarf galaxies. The team studied 14 globular clusters in the large elliptical galaxy Centaurus A (NGC 5128) and found that the globular clusters of Centaurus A are much more massive than most globulars in the Local Group of galaxies. Their findings hint at an connection between the largest globular clusters and the smallest dwarf galaxies, the largest globular clusters are in the same mass range as the smallest dwarf galaxies. The big bang team sees the recent discovery of a suspected intermediate-mass “black hole” in the Andromeda Galaxy globular cluster known as G1 as further evidence linking globular clusters to dwarf galaxies, for the presence of a moderate-sized “black hole” is more understandable if it once occupied the center of a dwarf galaxy250. End August 2004]
[December 2004: A discovery announced by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) reveals a clump of stars unlike any seen before. This clump of newly discovered stars, called SDSSJ1049+5103 or Willman 1, is so faint that it could only be found as a slight increase in the number of faint stars in a small region of the sky. The object was discovered in a search for extremely dim companion galaxies to the Milky Way. However, it is 200 times less luminous than any galaxy previously seen. A possibility is that Willman 1 is an unusual type of globular cluster, a spherical agglomeration of thousands to millions of old stars. Its properties are rather unusual for a globular cluster. It is dimmer than all known globular clusters. Moreover, these dim globular clusters are all much more compact than Willman 1. Another possibility is that this new object is in fact a dwarf galaxy. Then the object may be the tip of the iceberg of a yet unseen population of ultra-faint dwarf galaxies. Whether it is a globular cluster or a dwarf galaxy, according to the researchers this very faint object appears to represent one of the building blocks of the Milky Way259.
When the object is an ultra-faint dwarf galaxy indeed then it may be explained by the way of galaxy formation as proposed on this website: galaxies shrink and become dim and so, of course, also dwarf galaxies shrink and become dim, thus dwarf galaxies may turn into ultra-faint dwarf galaxies. I predict that such ultra-faint dwarf galaxies have more dark matter (i.e. darkened burned out stars) than normal dwarf galaxies. End December 2004]
Absence of dwarf spirals may be because:
Dwarf ellipticals and globular and open clusters may end as supernovae (5-2), Cepheids or other variable stars.
An example may be the Hyades (one day in the far future), the nearest open cluster. It consists of at least 200 stars at 140 light years. It appears to be shrinking in size6.
[May 18 2007: An exploding star first observed last September is the largest and most luminous supernova ever seen according to big bang astronomers. The astronomers think that it may be the first example of a type of massive exploding star rare today but probably common in the very early (big bang) universe. The researchers estimate the star's mass at between 100 and 200 times that of the sun. Such massive stars are so rare that galaxies like our own Milky Way may contain only a dozen out of a stellar population of 400 billion454.
Perhaps the explosion happened because multiple objects merged together, thus bringing an enormous explosion (5-2). End May 18 2007]
Normal spiral galaxies and barred spiral galaxies may eventually become partly dark and the galaxies may be teared up by tidal forces by other galaxies or/and by dark matter in the halo. This way the appearance of spiral galaxies may become “irregular”.
Thus spiral galaxies may be progenitors of Irr I's.
Irr I's may be an older generation than spirals as spirals may be an older generation than ellipticals.
[August 2004: With Irr I's being older galaxies with a lot of (larger) dark matter objects/blackened stars it is not surprising that one of the most active star-forming regions in our Local Group of galaxies, the Tarantula Nebula, also known as 30 Doradus, is situated in the Large Magellanic Cloud239, an Irr I galaxy. End August 2004]
There are not many Irr I galaxies: 3% of the observed galaxies are irregulars (big irregulars, for there are many small irregulars)8.
This (only) 3% may make sense, because Irr I's may be galaxies on the brink of becoming dark.
Therefore (big) Irr I's may only be around in their luminous form for a relatively short time, which would explain the 3%, but perhaps there are very many dark (big) irregulars (which rather may be dark spirals).
[May 2003: There is, of course, also the possibility that spirals and/or Irr I's never become completely dark. Perhaps that almost always there will pop up (at least) some hydrogen from somewhere (out of intergalactic space; or because cooled down (smaller) stars/white dwarfs loose gas, thus “feeding” the bigger dark matter objects) and if not (like, perhaps, in the case of BL Lacertae objects, 5-3) then dark matter objects may merge and gravitationally contract (at least in the center of spirals/Irr I's) and thus “dark” spirals/Irr I's may always radiate at least some (visible) light. Perhaps many darkened Irr I's look like dwarf irregulars this way. Many dwarf irregulars thus may have much more (dark) mass than expected so far. End May 2003]
[January 2005: An example of a darkened Irr I that looks like a dwarf irregular may be I Zwicky 18267. Thus I Zwicky 18 may have a lot of dark matter. Though, perhaps I Zwicky 18 also can be seen as a (very small) baby galaxy (4-1), because I Zwicky 18's interstellar gas is composed mostly of hydrogen and helium and contains little heavier elements such as carbon, nitrogen or oxygen. Still, it also and perhaps rather may be an old Irr I galaxy that is being refuelled by intergalactic gas. End January 2005]
[November 6 2007: The Hubble data has found fainter older red stars contained within I Zwicky 18. Big bang astronomers therefore think the galaxy is much older than previously thought. For the astronomers it is an outstanding mystery why I Zwicky 18 formed so few stars in the past, and why it is forming so many new stars right now. Spectroscopic observations with ground-based telescopes have shown that I Zwicky 18 is mostly composed of hydrogen and helium. In other words the stars within it have not created the same amounts of heavier elements as seen in other galaxies nearby. Thus the astronomers think that the galaxy's primordial makeup suggests that its rate of star formation has been much lower than that of other galaxies of similar age470.
If it turns out that I Zwicky 18 is a very old galaxy that has been refuelled with intergalactic gas consisting of helium and hydrogen the mystery may be solved. In that case large and small dark matter objects may have brought bright blue stars and red stars. The old dark objects in the old galaxy may have bound heavier elements than helium by gravity over a very long time, which may explain why so little heavier elements than helium are found in I Zwicky 18. When gas falls into I Zwicky 18 containing much elements heavier than helium then those metals may sink down in the stars to the heavy nucleus of the former dark matter object (7-1). End November 6 2007]
[January 2005: A bright X-ray source has been discovered in the dwarf irregular galaxy Holmberg II. Big bang astronomers found that the mystery source sends out X-rays evenly in all directions at a tremendous rate, shining one million times brighter in X-rays than the Sun shines at all wavelengths of light combined (5-1). Perhaps the mystery object came to existence by the merging of multiple dark matter objects. End January 2005]
Irr I's show little rotation8: the rotation velocity of the old spiral may have diminished by attracting hydrogen, dust and dark matter objects from intergalactic space; and inertial forces (by gravity, 3-2) may have diminished the rotation velocity of the galaxy. Also: Irregular I's have lost a lot of mass by radiation and thus may be easier to tear apart by gravitational forces from other galaxies, and: galaxies, on their way to become part of g-galaxies, orbit other galaxies in smaller and smaller orbits, thus gravitational forces from other galaxies become stronger. [July 2004: Perhaps that Irr I's can also descend from elliptical galaxies with not a strong universal engine in its core that doesn't bring a disk of gas in an elliptical (4-3). End July 2004]
Irr I's, being extremely old galaxies, thus may have lost (much of) their originally very powerful “spiral rotation” velocities.
[July 2004: Things may be different if spirals descend from ellipticals because gas flows (“rivers of gas”) determine where stars are refuelled (4-3). Then the spirals are embedded in halos of dark matter. Still, with spirals being refuelled with gas along the arms of the spirals, more and more matter will come to reside in the arms of the spiral relative to the rest of the spiral/dark matter halo when a spiral goes through Sa, Sb, Sc phases. Thus spirals can be teared up too with a dark matter halo (with relatively little dark matter eventually) surrounding the (spiral) galaxy. End July 2004]
With ellipticals being progenitors of spirals and spirals being progenitors of Irr I's it may make sense that (big) ellipticals are a scale bigger than spirals and that spirals are a scale bigger than Irr I's (table content taken from Zeilik/Gregory8):
| Ellipticals | Spirals | 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 |
Ellipticals (1 to 200 kpc) shrink to smaller spirals (5 to 50 kpc) which shrink to smaller Irr I's (1 to 10 kpc). [July 2004: Though, spirals may have a larger diameter with a large halo. Thus ellipticals may shrink less than the presented table suggests, i.e. outer parts of the elliptical may become dark rather than shrink. End July 2004]
Stars in ellipticals (mostly II and some I) stop shining, cool down, assemble hydrogen, and pop up as Population I stars (4-4, 7-1). So stars in spirals will have more heavy elements (I in arms, II and I overall). Irr I's, coming after the spiral phase, then, of course, will have stars with even higher heavy element content (mostly I and some II).
[November 7 2005: One may wonder why the outer arms of spiral galaxies often are blue, i.e. why there may be a lot of stars with heavy cores of dark matter in the outer arms of spiral galaxies like spiral galaxy NGC 1350378. Perhaps that when there is relatively little gas relatively big dark matter objects will attract the major amount of gas that is available and so stars with relatively big dark matter objects light up, hence the outer arms of spiral galaxies may show up blue (this may also explain blue stars in Irregular I galaxies). Nearer to the center of galaxies also smaller dark matter objects may assemble (more concentrated by flowing towards the center) hydrogen, which then also (next to the idea that the white Popular II stars may be the old stars of an elliptical) may explain stars with white light. End November 7 2005]
[April 1 2005: There is something double about galaxies getting old and dust formation. With a lot of dark matter objects in a galaxy one may expect clashes between those objects, thus producing dust. So one may expect to have more dust in spiral galaxies than in elliptical galaxies (also because of supernovae) and more dust in Irregular I's than in spiral galaxies. On the other hand, if a galaxy has become very old with very many dark matter objects and no or hardly stars (because hydrogen/gas has burned up) then the dust in such galaxies may have collected itself on dark matter objects. This then may explain why ellipticals have little dust, i.e. if indeed ellipticals originate from (very) old darkened and merged galaxies getting refueled by hydrogen/gas. Irregular I galaxies may be somewhere in between old (partly) darkened galaxies and very old darkened galaxies, i.e. Irregular I's may contain much dust (by clashing dark matter objects and by supernovae) as well as little dust (when the dust has collected itself on dark matter objects). Perhaps that an Irregular I can have regions with much dust/many heavy elements as well as little dust/little heavy elements at the same time.
The nearby Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), an Irregular I galaxy, lacks many of heavier elements (like carbon, iron and oxygen)310. This may be explained with dust collecting itself on dark matter objects. Perhaps the SMC is a very old system that may have been completely dark some time ago (before getting refueled by hydrogen/gas from intergalactic/intercluster space). End April 1 2005]
[March 15 2006: NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has observed a population of colliding galaxies whose entangled hearts are wrapped in tiny crystals resembling crushed glass. The crystals are essentially sand, or silicate, grains. This was the first time silicate crystals were detected in a galaxy outside of our own. The researchers were surprised to find the crystals in the centers of galaxies. The silicates wrap the galaxies' nuclei in giant, dusty glass blankets. The crystal-coated galaxies observed by Spitzer are quite different from our Milky Way. These bright and dusty galaxies, called ultraluminous infrared galaxies are swimming in silicate crystals. While a small fraction of the ultraluminous infrared galaxies cannot be seen clearly enough to characterize, most consist of two spiral-shaped galaxies in the process of merging into one. Their jumbled cores are hectic places, often bursting with massive, newborn stars. Astronomers believe the massive stars at the galaxies' centers are the main manufacturers (by supernovae) of the crystals403.
The centers of (old) spiral galaxies often may have a lot of dark matter objects containing silicates (like our planet Earth). Perhaps that many clashes (especially when two spiral galaxies merge) between dark matter objects produce the crystals. End March 15 2006]
If spirals descend from ellipticals they will contain more (i.e. have a higher percentage of) blackened stars/dark matter than ellipticals.
[March 2004: The kinematics of the outer parts of three intermediate-luminosity elliptical galaxies have been studied in recent years. The galaxies’ velocity dispersion profiles were found to decline with radius; dynamical modeling of the data indicated the presence of little if any dark matter in these galaxies’ halos. This was reported in 2003. Three elliptical galaxies seem to contain little or no dark matter. A team led by Aaron Romanowsky of the University of Nottingham in the UK found that the dynamics of the elliptical galaxies could be explained without the need for dark matter, in contrast to the motion of spiral galaxies81. The unexpected result questions the widely held belief within conventional astronomy that elliptical galaxies form when (spiral) galaxies rich in dark matter collide. Ellipticals having hardly dark matter and spirals having much dark matter therefore is a major problem within conventional astronomy82. Ellipticals having less dark matter than spirals is argued on this website throughout the chapters 4-3 and 4-4, but was already predicted on this website in January 2002 throughout chapter 4-2 (of my old website). And: with a rotating shrunken galaxy or shrunken cluster of galaxies (or: a universal engine, 4-1) slowly bringing an elliptical into rotation (as argued on this website since January 2002) also the velocity dispersion profiles declining with radius in elliptical galaxies is explained. [March 16 2006: However, whether really the velocity dispersion profiles decline with radius and therefore not much dark matter is to be expected within these galaxies is something that remains to be seen. Recent research concerning an elliptical galaxy has shown evidence for normal quantities of dark matter in the galaxy's dark halo because the measured velocity dispersion of the system was found to be constant with radius from the galaxy center, indicating significant dark matter at large radii in its halo405. The question about dark matter within elliptical galaxies is still far from answered.End March 16 2006]
In a shrunken spiral galaxy hydrogen still will be streaming towards the nucleus of the galaxy. Such hydrogen then concentrates more and more towards the nucleus and lights up cold dark matter objects towards the nucleus. This “concentration effect” may explain why dark matter objects are lighted up towards the nucleus and thus may explain why dark mater objects towards the halo do not light up, which would explain the missing dark matter towards the halo. (Though, hydrogen/gas in the halo flowing to the galactic disk may explain part of the missing dark matter too.) End March 2004]
[September 1 2005: The results of a comprehensive survey of more than 4,000 elliptical and lenticular galaxies in 93 nearby galaxy clusters contrast sharply with the conventional hierarchical model of galaxy formation and evolution, where large elliptical galaxies in the nearby universe formed by swallowing smaller galaxies with young stars344. The evolutionary history of elliptical galaxies and lenticular galaxies (which have a central bulge and a disk, but no evidence of spiral arms) is not well understood, big bang astronomers say. Their colors appear to be redder than typical spiral galaxies. The largest ellipticals are the reddest of all, but so far it has not been clear whether this property results primarily from being older in age, as the astronomers think they found with their survey, or from having a higher proportion of heavy chemical elements. “These so-called red galaxies contain the bulk of the stellar mass in the nearby universe, but we know little about their formation and evolution,” says Russell Smith of the University of Waterloo. “It was thought that all of the red galaxies were made of stars that formed very early, and are now quite old. Our results show that while this is true for the large galaxies, the smaller ones formed their stars comparatively recently in the history of the Universe. We predict that as new surveys look deeper and hence further into the past, they should see fewer faint red galaxies.”344
I predict that such new surveys will show the same number of faint red galaxies. That is, if the distance is calculated with tired light redshift (5-3). What probably will happen is that big bang astronomers will look for numbers of faint red galaxies and indeed find a lower number, but this will be because they will be looking for galaxies at much larger distances then they think they are dealing with. So less faint galaxies will be found because less faint galaxies at larger distances can be spotted. Of course the astronomers will assume that less faint galaxies can be seen at larger distances, but in their calculations they won't account for much larger distances because of tired light instead expansion redshift (5-3). I think the riddle with the red galaxies is to be solved with a different approach. When galaxies shrink the largest galaxies, the big ellipticals, are the galaxies with the youngest generation of stars, hence those stars are the reddest stars. Lenticular galaxies are older and therefore many of the stars in the galaxy have blackened, cooled down, assembled new gas and lit up with a bigger core of heavy metals and hence burn more fiercely, i.e. they are less red and more blue. The same goes for spirals that are older galaxies than the lenticular galaxies. End September 1 2005]
[July 9 2006: Recently big bang astronomers found some spirals that looked old instead of looking like young galaxies as they expected419. End July 9 2006]
[May 3 2005: Big bang astronomers have studied the large elliptical galaxy NGC 6482 which shines with the equivalent of 110 billion Suns. Using Chandra's Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer they used observations of hot gas within NGC 6482 to trace the distribution of dark matter in NGC 6482. Speaking at the RAS National Astronomy Meeting in Birmingham the astronomers described the discovery of a remarkable concentration of dark matter in the core of NGC 6482323. When cd Galaxies and large ellipticals descend from old shrunken (partly) darkened clusters of galaxies (which I have named g-galaxies, 4-1) as described on this website (4-3) then it is no surprise that astronomers find strong concentrations of dark matter in the centers of ellipticals. End May 3 2005]
[December 2004: NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has detected an extensive envelope of dark matter around an isolated elliptical galaxy, known as NGC 4555. NGC 4555 may be an example of a galaxy coming to existence in the middle of a nonluminous void (4-1). End December 2004]
[July 2004: The gas in planetary nebulae, used by Romanowsky's team to study the kinematics of the outer parts of the elliptical galaxies206, may contain a lot of dark matter objects (i.e. the gas may have concentrated itself towards groups of dark matter objects rather than that the gas is a remnant of an old star or old stars). Such groups of dark matter objects + gas, i.e. planetary nebulae, may be progenitors of globular (and open) clusters. Such clusters of stars then will orbit the central galaxy with ever increasing orbiting speeds at ever decreasing distances from the central galaxy. Speeds of planetary nebulae then will be higher when it comes to spiral galaxies relative to ellipticals, with ellipticals as progenitors of spiral galaxies. Such reasoning may change our view on “missing” dark matter. (Instead of a hot star in the center of the planetary nebula a glowing dark matter object or a dark matter object with little gas may be the central object that brings hot radiation, 5-2.) End July 2004]
[June 2004: Perhaps some (old) ellipticals do contain a lot of dark matter, like NGC 4261. X-ray observations have made big bang astronomers believe that NGC 4261 has “dozens of black holes and neutron stars strung out across space like beads on a necklace” in the outer edges of the galaxy159.
Dark matter objects may be able to radiate X-rays (5-2, 5-2), which then may explain the X-ray radiation in the outer edges of NGC 4261. End June 2004] [July 2004: Such “dark” matter objects then may be rather merged multiple (smaller) dark matter objects of a g-galaxy that has been cannibalized by NGC 4261. End July 2004]
[June 2004: Maybe that in the outer parts of the Milky Way stars can blacken en become denser, which then perhaps may cause such stars to be less tied to the center of the Milky Way by gravity (3-2) and slowly move away to more outer regions of our Galaxy. This too may explain (part of) the missing dark matter. End June 2004]
[May 2004: An elliptical that shrinks into a spiral galaxy may blacken at certain places due to the flow of hydrogen and this may explain why our (luminous) galaxy has its spiral shape while the dark matter distribution in our galaxy is spherical (4-4). End May 2004]
And: Sc spirals (descending from Sb spirals) will have more dark matter than Sb spirals which will have more dark matter than Sa spirals. When Irr I's descend from spirals then Ir I's will have more dark matter than spirals.
[April 2004: With solar system formation by dark matter objects swinging themselves around stars, as mentioned in 7-1 and the here mentioned galaxy formation, there will be more solar systems in spiral galaxies than in elliptical galaxies and more solar systems in spiral Sb than in spiral Sa galaxies and more solar systems in spiral Sc than in spiral Sb galaxies and more solar systems in Irr I galaxies than in spiral Sc galaxies. End April 2004]
[October 2003: The progression from Sa to Sc is one of decreasing prominence of the central bulge and increasing prominence of the disk rotating about it75. A compact old universal engine in the center of the nuclear bulge may explain the fast shrinking of the nuclear bulge relative to the disk rotating about it. End October 2003] [July 2004: Also gas streaming along the arms (4-3) into the galaxy will bring more and hotter stars in the spiral arms, thus increasing the prominence of the disk rotating the bulge. End July 2004]
[May 2003: Perhaps that irregulars can originate (too) when galaxies orbit each other with discordant directions of rotation as in Fig. 4-4-Ia and 4-4-Ib (see also 4-1), thus “ruining” each other.
Figure 4-4-Ia. Two galaxies with the directions of rotation different than their mutual orbiting direction.
Figure 4-4-Ib. Two galaxies with different directions of rotation.
End May 2003]
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 Galaxy8 (which may mean that LMC and SMC are old compared to the dwarf ellipticals, otherwise the dwarf ellipticals would (already) move (faster) towards our Galaxy as well).
[May 2003: LMC and SMC may be very old spiral galaxies that have radiated away much mass during many years, and they may be an example of 2 galaxies ruining each other as mentioned with Fig. 4-4-I. End May 2003]
[July 2004: Big bang astronomers see the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) as a “nest of X-ray binary pulsars” which they think is the result of the creative burst that spawned thousands of massive new stars 100 million years ago207. I see X-ray bursters as very old objects and as objects with a lot of heavy elements, 5-2. Such objects then are likely to be found in very old galaxies like the LMC and SMC, in which stars have had enormous times to produce heavy elements (and in which dark matter objects had time to merge). Finding relatively many X-ray bursters in the SMC thus may be no surprise at all. End July 2004]
As mentioned before in 4-4: if irregulars I are very old spirals and at the brink of becoming dark then it may make sense that there are relatively few (big) irregulars I (3%).
This may go 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 (i.e. ellipticals with high mass magnitudes, for dwarf ellipticals are very numerous).
But also, as mentioned above: perhaps that spirals can descend directly from disk-shaped universal engines, which would account for a higher number of spirals relative to ellipticals as well.
[August 2004: Big bang astronomers have discovered an extended halo of stars with a sharp cutoff in the dwarf irregular galaxy Leo A, a member of the Local Group. The existence of such a halo structure in dwarf irregular galaxies had been unconfirmed before this observation and challenges current big bang scenarios of galaxy formation by showing that instead of being the preservers of pristine building blocks that combined to form larger galaxies, dwarf irregular galaxies have their own history of build-up248. With the on this website described way of galaxy formation, i.e. galaxies shrink and their outer regions blacken, one expects a dwarf irregular to have an extended halo. End August 2004]
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.
Irregular clusters contain a mixture of all types of galaxies and are more disk structured.
A regular cluster may descend from a former old giant (spherical) g-galaxy that has been fuelled by hydrogen (4-1) from intergalactic (or rather: intercluster) space. (A stable spherical enduring g-galaxy may only come to existence when its sub-g-galaxies and galaxies predominantly orbit and rotate in the same way (4-1).)
Irregular clusters then may (rather) descend from g-galaxies with more galaxies that had discordant orbits and/or rotations (explaining the more disk like structure of irregulars, as well as irregular I galaxies (4-4) within irregular clusters).
Though: irregular clusters may rather be regions in which there has been luminosity for a very long time. Thus galaxies in irregular clusters may have reached spiral and irregular forms.
Galaxies within irregular clusters may have been attracted to each other for a long time, thus creating smaller voids where new (smaller) ellipticals could form itself. Hence it may be that all types of galaxies can coexist in an irregular cluster.
Irregular clusters are smaller than regular clusters, which, when regular clusters are (or can be) progenitors of irregular clusters, may be due to shrinking.
Regular clusters have more spherical symmetry than irregular clusters. The time that a regular cluster is in a spherical/early/"elliptical" state is probably much shorter than the time it is in its irregular state, i.e. if regular clusters can turn into irregular clusters. This may (partly) explain why irregular clusters of galaxies are far more numerous than regular clusters6.
[February 2004: Elliptical galaxies versus spiral galaxies and regular clusters versus irregular clusters both may be due to spirals and irregular clusters evolving from ellipticals and regular clusters respectively. Then it is not a coincidence that ellipticals and regular clusters are bigger/more spherelike/less numerous than spirals and irregular clusters respectively. End February 2004]
But also: perhaps that irregular clusters can descend “directly”, i.e. a big cluster in the center attracts other clusters that start orbiting the big cluster, thus directly forming a disk shaped irregular cluster or supercluster. (Perhaps that all superclusters are formed this way, i.e. all superclusters are disk shaped irregular superclusters, but perhaps that one day a regular supercluster is found with spherical symmetry.)
98% of the visible galaxies of the Local Supercluster are contained in just 11 clouds that fill a mere 5% of the overall volume8. Yet, the clouds do delineate a disk structure, with a width about ten times its thickness8.
Disk like structures of superclusters resemble three other ways of mass moving to other mass:
Thus: structures in space may get flattened by rotation.
But there may be exceptions to this principle. When more galaxies participate in the forming of a g-galaxy, i.e. galaxies coming from all kind of directions to the g-galaxy in progress, than this, over enormous amounts of time may lead to the following. A disk shaped g-galaxy at the center slowly shrinks into a sphere-like object that later, by attracting hydrogen, turns into a cD galaxy (or giant elliptical). New old galaxies/g-galaxies may come from all directions and thus will form a sphere-shaped giant g-galaxy around the shrunk center. A very large sphere-shaped g-galaxy, with smaller g-galaxies or galaxies that have turned into spherical universal engines, then may become, after attracting hydrogen, a regular cluster: a giant system with spherical symmetry and a high degree of central condensation with (young) elliptical and SO galaxies. [July 2004: Perhaps it is more likely that the spherical and spherical/flattened (shrunk) dark matter halos (4-4) can originate elliptical and SO galaxies. One should take in mind that (shrunk original) dark matter halos have cannibalized other smaller (darkened) galaxies; therefore it may be possible that a new regular cluster gets new galaxies (by assembling hydrogen/gas around old dark matter objects, i.e. stars) that are big (again). End July 2004]
Another example of a spiral or disk shaped object that may have become a sphere may be Sagittarius A*. And: our Galaxy may become a universal engine in the form of a sphere in the very far future (but also an Irregular I, which may, of course, still end up as a sphere). Our Galaxy has quite a few small galaxies within 250 kpc that may turn our Galaxy in the future rather into a sphere than into a Irregular I, but of course, much may depend on how all the small galaxies will orbit our Galaxy in the future. Our Galaxy may also end up as a spiral object, like Sgr A West in the nucleus of our Galaxy (4-1).
[May 2004: Peering back in time more than 7 billion (big bang) years, a team of astronomers using a powerful new spectrograph at the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii has obtained the first maps showing the distribution of galaxies at such a long distance. They found that older redder galaxies with little ongoing star formation are much more strongly clustered in space than abundant star-forming younger galaxies92.
[July 2004: I wonder if such abundant star-forming younger galaxies can be BCDs (4-1), which are less clustered indeed. End July 2004]
When galaxies in an infinite universe move towards each other to form g-galaxies then it makes sense that older galaxies are stronger clustered than younger galaxies.
Statistical tests indicate that the clustering of galaxies seen in the new found 7-billion-big-bang-years-distance galaxy maps is not as strong as that seen in the local universe92.
This is probably because a distance of 7 billion big bang years at a certain expansion redshift z value is different than the distance with the same z value with tired light cosmological redshift, the latter distance is much more billions of light years away (5-3). This means that the big bang astronomers who did the observations did see much less galaxies than they had expected (because the galaxies are further away and so much galaxies couldn't be seen).
But also: there may be differences between certain regions in the Universe (5-4). End May 2004]
Is it possible that (part of the) faraway galaxies appear to be galaxies, but really are clusters of galaxies? Because in an infinite universe “galaxies” with z=3.2 are more likely to be at a distance of somewhere between 37 and 63 billion light-years with tired light redshift than at a distance of 11.5 billion light years with expansion redshift (5-3)?
Perhaps sometimes we may see a point in a galaxy and think that a star (or a small cluster of stars) is shining where in fact we see a galaxy as a point in a cluster?
[February 2004: One also may have to consider how much of the redshift can be intrinsic redshift due to gravitational redshift (5-4). End February 2004]
Perhaps apparent galaxies look like irregular-peculiar galaxies very far away.
[May 2003: This may have been observed by the Hubble Space Telescope: 57% of the objects in the Hubble Deep Field picture of December 1995 are irregular-peculiar objects compared to 1.4% irregulars for nearby galaxies6.
Richard Ellis studied the Hubble Deep Field in detail and found a large number of a new kind of low surface brightness, peculiar galaxy29. This is exactly what you expect with apparent galaxies, i.e. clusters of galaxies that appear to be galaxies.
And: if you look further away (as with the Hubble Deep Field picture) you expect to see bigger objects in an infinite universe. Big superclusters, old objects, that are likely to interact more with other (old) large objects than (younger) nearby galaxies interact with each other (4-3). Thus it is not surprising that the Hubble Deep Field picture shows 19% of the objects interacting against 2.2% of nearby galaxies interacting29. End May 2003]
[April 5 2005: David Lumb and colleagues at the Space Research Technology Centre in the Netherlands (ESTEC) have measured that galaxy clusters in the distant universe emit more X-rays than those in the near universe, much to their surprise315.
If the galaxy clusters in the distant universe are further away than expected then the clusters are bigger than expected. Therefore the galaxies in the distant universe rather may appear to emit more X-rays. End April 5 2005]
[March 28 2005: Last year new pictures made by the Hubble Telescope were published, the so-called Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) pictures. The HUDF pictures show objects that existed “400 to 800 million years after the big bang” (corresponding to a redshift range of 12 to 7). The galaxies in the HUDF have various sizes, shapes, and colors. Astronomers say there is a zoo of oddball galaxies littering the field. Some look like toothpicks; others like links on a bracelet. A few appear to be interacting301.
I think that the HUDF pictures rather show clusters of galaxies than galaxies. End March 28 2005]
[January 23 2006: Big bang astronomers have studied distant galaxies in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field and found to their surprise that relatively large and bright “galaxies” did not show fluctuation in brightness. However, a number of faint galaxies fluctuated significantly in brightness over time. The researchers don't know the reason why bright galaxies don't fluctuate and faint galaxies do393.
When the bright galaxies turn out to be clusters of galaxies then (light fluctuating) AGNs in those clusters will have a relatively small effect on the fluctuation of light within the clusters. However, when the faint galaxies turn out to be large galaxies at a much further distance then an AGN within such a galaxy will have a relatively strong effect on the fluctuation of light of the galaxy. End January 23 2006]
[June 2004: Galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field turned out to be similar in many ways to considerably closer galaxies. A team of big bang astronomers found that most of the galaxies, which they think existed when their big bang universe was only about one billion years old, had populations of stars similar to the much closer galaxies that could be up to three billion years old. Some big bang researchers had predicted that the earliest galaxies should be much bluer due to an abundance of extremely hot stars168. But this doesn't seem to be the case, much to the surprise of the team. Many of the galaxies also appear to be interacting167.
In an infinite universe one expects galaxies far away to be the same as galaxies nearby as well as one expects galaxies (or clusters, if the galaxies are mistaken for clusters) to be interacting as they do nearby. End June 2004]
[May 2004: An in 1997 observed galaxy behind CL1358+62 with a redshift of 4.92 may not be a galaxy, but a cluster or even a supercluster instead93. End May 2004]
[May 2004: In 2003 astronomers reported about new pictures of galaxies very far away, pictures taken with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST). The HST astronomers reported that the sizes of galaxies clearly would increase continuously from the time the (big bang) universe was about 1 billion years old to an age of 6 billion years; approximately half the current age of the big bang universe, 13.7 billion years. They reported about star birth rate raising mildly, by about a factor of three, between the time the universe was about one billion years old and 1.5 billion years old. Star birth remained high until about 7 billion years ago, when it quickly dropped to one-tenth the earlier “baby boomer” rate. This was seen as further evidence for major galaxy building trailing off when the universe was about half its current age. This increase in galaxy size is thought by them to be consistent with “bottom-up” models, where galaxies grow hierarchically, through mergers and accretion of smaller satellite galaxies104.
With a tired light model instead of expansion redshift the “early universe” galaxies in the HST surveys are much further away, perhaps over a 70 billion light years (instead of over 12 billion big bang light years away, 5-3). This may explain some of the above mentioned ways of reasoning of big bang astronomers concerning star birth in the “early universe”. If it turns out that (part of) the “galaxies” they think they see are in fact clusters of galaxies then seeing those clusters a little better (i.e. “between the time the universe was about one billion years old and 1.5 billion years old”; on a tired light scale there is a much bigger distance difference than 0.5 billion light-years) means seeing more smaller dots or more galaxies within the cluster, which they may mistake for increasing star birth rate.
When far away clusters are indeed mistaken for galaxies then you will have a point where big bang astronomers will switch from seeing clusters (which they mistake for galaxies) into seeing (really) galaxies. This may be at a distance of 7 billion (big bang) light years (i.e. the moment where they now think that star birth rate quickly dropped to one-tenth the earlier “baby boomer” rate; and: the moment “galaxies” stopped increasing).
Big bang astronomers think that the sizes of major galaxies increase until 7 billion (big bang) light years ago. But things are different when the distances to far away galaxies are very much larger than expected so far. Galaxies in the “early universe” (which, again, actually may be clusters) that are now thought of as relatively small are much bigger when they are at much bigger distances.
[January 2005: When astronomers mistake clusters of galaxies for galaxies then one expects that certain types of “galaxies”, i.e. clusters, will be observed by big bang astronomers really as clusters at different redshifts than other “galaxies”/clusters. For instance: small compact clusters with very many small galaxies will be seen as clusters relatively late, i.e. at relatively low redshift, where large clusters with relatively few but big galaxies are seen as clusters at relatively large redshift, i.e. the individual galaxies are really seen as galaxies by big bang astronomers at a large redshift. This means one does not expect the change of “clusters no longer mistaken for galaxies” to happen at a particular distance, like 7 billion (big bang) light years, but rather within a distance-range, for instance a distance span from roughly 8,0 billion to 4,0 billion (big bang) light-years. This may have been observed.
A team of big bang astronomers states that their observations have revealed that “galaxy merging” slowed down from 8,0 billion until 4,0 billion (big bang) light-years274. What really may have happened is that from 8,0 billion until 4,0 billion (big bang) light-years the astronomers less and less mistook clusters for galaxies.
They measured that galaxies with large redshifts show oxygen abundances two times lower than present-day spirals. This may be because they mistook clusters for galaxies and therefore may have found a lower concentration of oxygen for “galaxies” (see in this respect also the low surface brightness of “galaxies” in the Hubble Deep Field, 4-4).
Luminous Infrared Galaxies (LIRGs) are a subset of galaxies whose infrared luminosity is larger than 100 billion time the luminosity of our Sun. The team discovered that contrary to the local universe where LIRGs are very rare objects, at a redshift from 0.4 to 1, that is, 4,0 to 8,0 billion (big bang) years ago, roughly one sixth of bright galaxies were LIRGs. Measuring more LIRGs between 4,0 to 8,0 billion (big bang) years ago may be because clusters were mistaken for galaxies. End January 2005]
[March 19 2007: New data of thousands of galaxies clearly show that the galaxies at the far edge of the survey, around 9 (big bang) billion years ago, are noticeably different (for instance: different mass, different rate of star formation) from those at the near, 7 (big bang) billion-year edge of the survey, which look more like “normal” galaxies today449. I think the “galaxies” at 7 billion (big bang) years look more like nearby galaxies than “galaxies” at 9 billion years because at 7 billion years less clusters are taken for galaxies than at 9 billion years. End March 19 2007]
[February 1 2008: Big bang cosmologists think that during the history of the big bang universe the cosmic landscape became less and less dominated by violent galaxy mergers. But not only is this their theory, they also claim they have measured it479. I think that when they look back in time they more and more mistake clusters of galaxies for galaxies and therefore they wrongly concluded that there were more galaxy mergers in the past. End February 1 2008]
[March 17 2006: Big bang astronomers have measured the velocity fields of several tens of distant galaxies, leading to the surprising discovery that as much as 40% of distant galaxies were “out of balance” - their internal motions were very disturbed - a possible sign for the astronomers that they are still showing the aftermath of collisions between galaxies. When the researchers limited themselves to only those galaxies that have apparently reached their equilibrium, the scientists found that the relation between the dark matter and the stellar content did not appear to have evolved during the last 6 billions years407.
The “out of balance” galaxies may have been clusters of galaxies instead. When the galaxies “that have apparently reached their equilibrium” are galaxies indeed then it is normal that the relation between the dark matter and the stellar content of far away and nearby galaxies is the same, because in an infinite universe the universe is likely to be the same everywhere. End March 17 2006]
[January 24 2006: Big bang astronomers tracked star formation in galaxies out to modest distances, more than half the age of the universe, and found that all galaxies, big or small, seem to be fading gradually so that they are less active today than they were further back in time. Astronomers have found from previous galaxy surveys that star formation activity becomes more intense as they probe farther back in time395.
This may be explained, as I wrote before (Storrs presentation), by big bang astronomers mistaking clusters of galaxies more and more for galaxies when they go to further distances. [September 5 2006: Big bang astronomers think that new observations show that very high star formation rates deduced for many of luminous star forming high redshift galaxies in de redshift range z = 2-3, are about one hundred times greater than star formation in the present-day Milky Way433. I wonder how they will think if those galaxies turn out to be much further away than expected right now by big bang astronomers. I wonder too if those galaxies are really galaxies and not clusters of galaxies. End September 5 2006]
New findings by the researchers from a large survey of galaxies suggest that star formation is largely driven by the supply of raw materials, rather than by galactic mergers that trigger sudden bursts of star formation. Stars form when clouds of gas and dust collapse under the force of gravity, and the study supports a scenario in which exhaustion of a galaxy's gas supply leads to a gradual decline in the star-formation rate395.
I agree that star formation is largely driven by supply of raw materials (from intergalactic space), rather than by galactic mergers. But I think that the gradual decline in the star-formation rate is because of the gradual decline of making mistakes (by big bang astronomers) when it comes to mistaking clusters of galaxies for galaxies (Storrs presentation). End January 24 2006]
The same group of astronomers also took the deepest X-ray image ever taken (by the Chandra X-ray Observatory). They discovered mysterious “black holes”, which have no optical counterparts. Seven mysterious sources were completely invisible in the optical with HST. The group concluded that the seven sources were either the most distant “black holes” ever detected, or the sources were less distant “black holes” that are the most dust enshrouded known104.
Perhaps they measured the furthest objects in the universe so far indeed: very strong AGNs that outshine the galaxies they reside in. (Though, perhaps AGNs sometimes have no host galaxies, 5-1.)
The same group of astronomers also found that active “black holes” in distant, relatively small galaxies were rarer than expected104. What may have happened is: those “relatively small galaxies” may have been relatively small clusters with relatively few AGNs. Or: the “relatively small galaxies” were major galaxies with relatively few AGNs. End May 2004]
The galaxy cluster Abell 2029 at a billion (big bang) light years is composed of thousands of galaxies enveloped in a gigantic cloud of hot gas105 (X-ray picture = top picture). The cluster could easily be looked at as a galaxy when it would have been more then 40 billion light years away. Clusters very much further away may be easily looked upon as galaxies by big bang astronomers who, of course, never will look at such “galaxies” as further away than 13.7 billion years. The “galaxies” 3C294 and 4C41.17, which are 10 and 12 billion (big bang) light-years from Earth, respectively and therefore in reality perhaps more than 40 billion light years away, seem to be typically “galaxies” that may turn out to be clusters107 (note that object in left picture is much further away). [January 2005: Also the hereafter mentioned “mysterious blobs” (4-4) at a distance of 11 big bang light-years may turn out to be gas that is enveloping galaxy clusters (like Abell 2029) rather than galaxies (as thought by big bang astronomers). End January 2005]
Another group of astronomers found 10 galaxies at a distance of almost 12 billion (big bang) light years. They found that those galaxies must be “the most luminous type of galaxies in the universe, several hundred times more luminous than our Milky Way”113. If the objects are at a distance of over 50 billion light years those “most luminous galaxies” may not galaxies, but clusters of galaxies. End May 2004]
[September 3 2007: Big bang astronomers have spotted extremely bright galaxies hiding in the distant universe. The newfound galaxies are intrinsically bright due to their large rate of star formation-1000 times greater than the Milky Way. However, much of that light is hidden by surrounding dust and gas, leaking out only in the infrared. The galaxies are located about 12 billion (big bang) light-years away. They are the most luminous and massive galaxies seen at that great distance. It was a real surprise for the big bang astronomers to find galaxies that massive and luminous existing so “early in the (big bang) universe”466. I think those “galaxies” will turn out to be clusters of galaxies in the future (and turn out to shine with much more light because they are at a greater distance than expected right now by big bang astronomers, because of tired light redshift instead of expansion redshift). End September 3 2007]
[May 3 2005: In April 2005 big bang astronomers announced they had showed that galaxies can have redshifts of about 6, which means they are so far away that light from them has taken about 13 billion years to reach us. The next step was to learn more about the stars within these most distant galaxies by studying new infrared images of this region of space taken by Spitzer. Hubble Space Telescope images already had given information about the stars, but the new infrared images taken with the Spitzer Space Telescope gave extra information about the light that comes from stars within these distant big bang galaxies. Using the Spitzer images, the team was able to “weigh the stars” in these galaxies by studying the starlight. It seemed that in a couple of cases these early big bang galaxies are nearly as massive as galaxies we see around us today, which was surprising for the team because the big bang theory predicts that galaxies start small and grow by colliding and merging with other galaxies. The real puzzle for the team was that these galaxies seem to be already quite old when the big bang universe was only about 5 per cent of its current age. This means star formation must have started very early in the history of the big bang universe, earlier than previously believed324.
Perhaps the team mistook clusters of galaxies for galaxies. End May 3 2005]
[January 2005: Recently big bang astronomers presented new evidence in the case of giant galactic blobs. These blobs are huge clouds of intensely glowing material that envelop faraway galaxies (i.e. galaxies according to big bang astronomers). Using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope's infrared vision, the astronomers caught a glimpse of the galaxies tucked inside the blobs. Their observations reveal monstrously bright galaxies and suggest that blobs might surround not one, but multiple galaxies in the process of merging together. The astronomers think it is possible that extremely bright galactic mergers lie at the center of all the mysterious blobs. They don't know what fuels the blobs with gas.
Blobs were first discovered about five years ago with visible-light telescopes. They are located billions of light-years away in ancient galactic structures or filaments, where thousands of young galaxies are clustered together. These large, fuzzy galactic halos are made up of hot hydrogen gas and are about 10 times as large as the galaxies they encompass. Astronomers can see glowing blobs, but they don't know what provides the energy to light them up.
The Spitzer Space Telescope can sense the infrared glow from the dusty galaxies inside the blobs. When the astronomers used Spitzer to look at four well-known blobs located in a galactic filament 11 billion (big bang) light-years away, they discovered that one of them appears to be made up of three galaxies falling into each other -- an unusual cosmic event. The finding is intriguing because previous observations from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope found that another one of the four blobs surrounds a merger between two galaxies. The astronomers speculate that all blobs might share this trait; however, more evidence is needed to close the case they say. Spitzer measurements revealed that all four of the galaxies studied are among the brightest in the universe, giving off the equivalent light of trillions of Suns.
The astronomers think they are far from solving the mystery of the blobs and that their observations only deepen it. They not only consider the gas clouds to be bizarre, but also wonder why the blobs contain some of the brightest and most violent galaxies in the universe271.
The blobs are 11 billion big bang light-years away. Therefore I think these blobs rather may be clusters of galaxies at a much further infinite universe distance than galaxies at 11 billion big bang light years. The above mentioned galaxy cluster Abell 2029 (4-4) at a billion (big bang) light years is composed of thousands of galaxies enveloped in a gigantic cloud of hot gas. When Abell 2029 would have had a redshift of 3.2 and therefore expected by (big bang) astronomers to be at a distance of 11.5 billion big bang light-years (galaxies with z=3.2 are more likely to be at a distance of somewhere between 37 and 63 billion light-years with tired light redshift, 5-3) then perhaps the astronomers would have spotted a “blob”. Perhaps that the three galaxies within one of the above mentioned blobs are three clusters within a supercluster, i.e. the blob. End January 2005]
[September 5 2006: Big bang astronomers have used the Subaru and Keck telescopes to discover gigantic filaments of galaxies stretching across 200 million light years in space. They think the filaments are formed 2 billion years after the big bang and that the filaments are the largest structures ever discovered in the Universe. The newly found giant structure extending over 200 million light years has a concentration of galaxies up to four times denser than the universe's average. The only previous known structures with such a high density are much smaller, measuring about 50 million light years in scale429.
I think the giant structure is much further away than expected by the researchers. The concentration of galaxies in the structure therefore may turn out to be the same as the universe's average. At the same time the structure may turn out to be much larger than 200 million light years. Perhaps the structure eventually will turn out to be a supercluster. End September 5 2006]
[February 26 2005: Big bang astronomers have concluded that as early as a billion years after the big bang, clusters of galaxies were already forming together according to observations made with the Subaru Telescope. This is much earlier than astronomers had expected. Big bang astronomers think that it shows that galaxies didn't need to fully form before they began organizing into clusters. A team from Japan studied hundreds of galaxies approximately 12.7 billion light years away (a red shift of 5.7) and found that many were forming small clusters even as they were forming some of their first stars. In a certain area the researchers found a concentration of galaxies that could not be explained by chance. The researchers confirmed that there were six galaxies concentrated in a small volume only 3 million light years in diameter, forming a galaxy cluster. The cluster has several properties that reveal its young age, the team says. It is one hundred times less massive than present day galaxy clusters and has significantly fewer members. The fact that a cluster is already forming so soon after the big bang puts strong constraints on the fundamental structure of the big bang universe, the team says. The prevailing theory of big bang cosmology postulates that smaller mass structures form first and then grow into more massive structures, but the new results seem to contradict that. The results were published in the February 10, 2005, edition of the Astrophysical Journal (ApJ 620, L1-L4)282, 303.
Galaxies with z=5.7 are more likely to be at a distance of somewhere between 66 and 112 billion light-years with tired light redshift (5-3). The six galaxies concentrated in the “small volume only 3 million light years in diameter” may be clusters of galaxies themselves. The diameter of 3 million light years may be much larger. So the cluster with six galaxies that is thought to be one hundred times less massive than present day galaxy clusters, may be much more massive than expected and there may be significantly more galaxies within the cluster than expected. End February 26 2005]
[March 16 2005: Big bang astronomers claim to have discovered the most distant, very massive structure in the Universe known so far. It is a remote cluster of galaxies that is thought to weigh as much as several thousand galaxies like our own Milky Way and is thought to be located 9 billion (z=1.4) big bang light-years away, 500 million light years farther out than the previous record holding massive cluster. The discovery of such a complex and mature structure so early in the history of the (big bang) Universe was highly surprising for the big bang astronomers. Until recently it would even have been deemed impossible for them285, 292.
The galaxies appear reddish and are of the elliptical type. Perhaps that such elliptical galaxies are giant elliptical galaxies or cD galaxies, which are the (giant) galaxies one may expect to see the farthest away in an infinite universe (without confusing them for clusters).
At the same time other big bang astronomers claim to have found clusters at a red shift of 5.7 or approximately 12.7 billion big bang light years away: 4-4 (though, the clusters at z=5.7 are thought to be smaller by the big bang astronomers). The above mentioned distance-range from roughly 8,0 billion to 4,0 billion (big bang) light-years (4-4) is something that, of course, will reach out to higher and higher z-values when the observing techniques become better and better, i.e. when observing techniques discover galaxies and clusters at ever higher z-values. Seeing the biggest galaxies at a distance of 9 billion big bang light-years then just may fit in here. End March 16 2005]
[March 28 2005: Already in the beginning of 2004 big bang astronomers had found an enormous string of galaxies at z=2.38 (at a distance of 10,8 billion big bang light-years, 5-3). The string of galaxies was thought to be about 300 million light-years long (longer in an infinite universe with tired light red shift) and was thought comparable in size to the “Great Wall” of galaxies found in the nearby universe by Dr. John Huchra and Dr. Margaret Geller in 1989. The massive structure defied the big bang models of 2004. According to big bang astronomers there had not been enough time since the big bang to form structures as colossal as the new discovered string302. End March 28 2005]
[August 2004: Recently big bang astronomers claimed to have made a major breakthrough in pinpointing some galaxies extremely far away using the Spitzer Space Telescope to resolve the galaxies initially detected by the James Clerk Maxwell telescope224. Back in 1995, the UK's SCUBA camera (Sub-millimetre Common User Bolometer Array) on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope in Hawaii, which detects light with wavelengths just under a millimetre, began finding fuzzy traces of very distant galaxies. Some of these are either too distant or too dusty to be seen even by the Hubble Space Telescope. UK and US astronomers teamed up to combine Spitzer's sharp images with SCUBA's ability to find such far away galaxies. They found that the fuzzy light traces resolved into multiple individual galaxies.
Current big bang theories of the formation of galaxies are based on the hierarchical merging of smaller entities into larger and larger structures, starting from about the size of a stellar globular cluster and ending with clusters of galaxies. According to this scenario, it is assumed that no massive galaxies existed in the young big bang universe. However, using the multi-mode FORS2 instrument on the Very Large Telescope at Paranal, a team of Italian astronomers have identified four remote galaxies, several times more massive than the Milky Way galaxy, or as massive as the heaviest galaxies in the present-day universe. Those galaxies have redshifts between 1.6 and 1.9. The existence of such systems so far away is a problem for the current big bang theory225.
Within an infinite universe one expects to find the same big galaxies in far regions of the universe as in nearby regions. But also: the spotted galaxies at redshifts between 1.6 and 1.9 may be clusters of galaxies. End August 2004]
[June 2004: In January 2004 a team of big bang astronomers announced that they had found embryonic galaxies a mere 1.5 billion years after the birth of their big bang cosmos (or at a distance of 12.2 billion big bang light years). Their “baby galaxies” reside in a still-developing cluster, which they called “the most distant proto-cluster ever found”: TN J1338-1942. They also had found mature galaxies at a (big bang) looking back time of nearly 9 billion years. The discovery of “the most distant proto-cluster ever found” baffled big bang astronomers, because until recently they didn't think that clusters existed when the universe was only about 5 billion years old155.
Those “baby galaxies” may be clusters of galaxies. The “infant galaxies” that, according to big bang astronomers, existed more than 12 billion years ago (at redshift 4.1) are supposed to be so young that the astronomers can still see a “flurry of stars” forming within them. Those “flurries of stars” rather may be galaxies within the clusters. The team of astronomers think that the galaxies are grouped around one large galaxy, but I guess what they really see is a supercluster with clusters of galaxies surrounding one major central cluster.
Where the discrepancy between the big bang distance (respectively 7 billion and 12 billion years with expansion redshift) and the infinite universe distance (like respectively 20 and over 80 billion years with tired light redshift, 5-3) becomes very big very fast it is no surprise that big bang astronomers start to misinterpret celestial objects in that particular range of the universe.
Up to 7 billion (big bang) light-years ago, i.e. at a redshift of about z=0.7, the situation still seems to be normal: astronomers have found evidence that the number of clusters at 7 billion (big bang) light-years ago is little different from that of today186. End June 2004]
[July 2004: A Cambridge team may have found the same cosmic puzzle (for big bang astronomers): on the basis of a sample of galaxies (which rather may be clusters of galaxies) in the “early” (big bang) universe, they have calculated how many galaxies there are involved in the rapid formation of stars in the very distant universe (redshift 6). They have compared the answer with previous work looking at nearer galaxies, with redshifts around 4. It seems that there are fewer of these galaxies early in the history of the (big bang) Universe, compared to more recent times212.
When they would have taken distances to be much further (like 100 billion light-years with z=6 and the tired light concept, 5-3, instead of 13 billion big bang light-years with expansion redshift212) then they would have estimated the number of galaxies much higher (because then they would know that a lot of galaxies could not be observed due to the great distance). End July 2004]
[September 23 2005: Recently big bang astronomers announced different findings. In a total sample of about 8,000 galaxies selected only on the basis of their observed brightness in red light, almost 1,000 bright and vigorously star forming galaxies were discovered that were formed between 9 and 12 billion big bang years ago. To the researchers surprise this was two to six times higher than had been found previously. While observations and big bang models have consistently indicated that the big bang universe had not yet formed many stars in the first billion years of cosmic (big bang) time, the discovery announced today by big bang scientists calls for a significant change in this picture they say367.
Again, if the astronomers would have taken the distances to be much further they would have estimated the number of (bright) galaxies much higher. End September 23 2005]
[June 2004: Recently big bang astronomers claimed to have discovered the most distant galaxy known to date, Abell 1835 IR1916, the first galaxy known to have a redshift as large as 10. The galaxy appears to be ten thousand times less massive than the Milky Way. They think that the galaxy is at a distance of 13.230 billion (big bang) light years away and therefore seen at a time when their (big bang) universe was merely 470 million years young178.
Abell 1835 IR1916 may be much larger and at a distance of over 100 billion light years away. End June 2004]
[October 2004: Right now big bang astronomers think that we live in a reionized universe. During early time cold hydrogen atoms drifting in space were pumped up with so much energy from the ultraviolet starlight that they were stripped of their electrons. The universe once again became transparent to light. This early period is called reionization because the primeval universe was initially ionized as a soup of hydrogen nuclei and free-moving electrons. As the universe cooled through the expansion of space, these electrons were captured by hydrogen nuclei to make neutral hydrogen. But the electrons were lost again when the first fiercely bright stars fired up.
According to big bang astronomers Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) data show that faint galaxies dominate at z=6 epoch, compared to more recent times, and are likely to have played a significant role in the late stages of reionization. The team has also used HUDF data to detect a small sample of galaxies at higher redshifts (at z=7-8), 200 million years closer in time to the big bang. The amount of reionizing light at redshifts 7-8 appears to be lower than what is seen only 200 million years later at redshift 6255.
I think that the z=6 galaxies are not faint galaxies, but large galaxies are even clusters of galaxies because galaxies at z=6 are much further away with tired light redshift (like 100 billion light-years instead of 12.5 billion big bang light-years, 5-3). The amount of “reionizing” light at redshifts 7-8 probably only may appear to be lower than what is seen at redshift 6, because the distance between z=7-8 and z=6 becomes much bigger with tired light redshift. End October 2004]
[July 2004: Recently big bang astronomers did the most comprehensive survey ever done covering the bulk of the galaxies that represent conditions in the early big bang universe. They expected to find basically zero massive galaxies beyond about 9 billion (big bang) years ago, because their theoretical models predict that massive galaxies form last. Instead, they found highly developed galaxies that just shouldn't have been there according to their theories, but are222.
Within an infinite universe one expects to find the same galaxies at large distances as nearby. End June 2004]
[April 12 2006: Galaxies in distant clusters appear to be very different from those in the clusters that we see in the local Universe. The most distant galaxy clusters have a huge variation in the abundances of elements such as oxygen and magnesium, whereas the chemistry of galaxies in the sample of closer clusters appears to be much more homogeneous, that is, according to big bang astronomers414.
Those most distant galaxy clusters may be superclusters and much further away. In that case one may expect more variation between different superclusters because different superclusters can be in different stages of development. When looking at nearby clusters one may expect the clusters to be more in the same stage of development because the bigger enveloping supercluster may be in a certain stage of development. End April 12 2006]
[November 7 2005: The latest images released from the Hubble Space Telescope pinpoint an enormous galaxy located almost 13 billion light-years away - at a time when the Universe was only 800 million years old. This galaxy in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field, named HUDF-JD2, contains 8 times the mass of stars as the Milky Way, and really shouldn't exist according to current big bang theories377. End November 7 2005]
[March 24 2005: Big bang astronomers used to think the early big bang universe was a pretty simple place containing relatively small, blue/white-star-forming galaxies. At distances of 10 to 12 billion (big bang) light-years astronomers now are seeing blue/white galaxies with lots of dust, blue/white galaxies with no dust, but also red (and big) galaxies with lots of dust and red (and big) galaxies with no dust. Much to their surprise. There is as much variety in the early universe as we see around us today, they say297.
Within an infinite universe one expects to find the same galaxies at large distances as nearby. The far away galaxies (which may be clusters) probably appear a little different than galaxies nearby to the big bang astronomers because the astronomers have a wrong perception of the distance of the objects they see (5-3). End March 24 2005]
[March 16 2006: Researchers looked at Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs) and checked the relative amount of power coming out in X-rays compared to other wavelengths and found that this ratio does not change over 13 billion (big bang) years. They looked at the X-ray spectra of AGNs and found that these also did not change through time. Both findings were much to their surprise404. However, the findings are not a surprise if you look at the Universe as infinite so AGNs are the same everywhere. End March 16 2006]
[December 2004: For years, astronomers have noted a direct relationship between the mass of a galaxy's central, supermassive “black hole” and the total mass of the bulge of stars at its core. The more massive the “black hole”, the more massive the bulge. Recently big bang astronomers used the Very Large Array radio telescope to study the most distant known quasar and its host galaxy. The observations seem to indicate that the galaxy has a supermassive black hole but no massive bulge of stars. The team thinks that the quasar dubbed J1148+5251, is at a distance of 12.8 billion light-years263.
The quasar and its host galaxy may be rather at 70 billion light-years than at 12.8 billion light-years. Therefore the bulge of stars in the host galaxy may be more massive than calculated by the team (the “black hole” too; the bulge of stars is likely to be more outshined by the “black hole” than expected so far). End December 2004]
[September 3 2007: Big bang scientists have observed that more distant galaxy clusters (at 5.8 billion big bang light years) contain 20 times more AGNs than nearby galaxy clusters (at 2.5 billion big bang light years). They also observed that AGNs outside clusters are also more common when the Universe is younger, but only by factors of two or three over the same age span461.
Perhaps that at a distance of 5.8 (big bang) billion light years the big bang astronomers have taken (some) multiple clusters of galaxies for clusters of galaxies or larger clusters of galaxies for smaller clusters of galaxies because they made a mistake with the distance, i.e. when cosmological redshift ought to be explained with tired light redshift instead of expansion redshift. With a larger distance than 5.8 billion light years the number of AGNs outside clusters also goes down when the distance of 5.8 billion (big bang) light years turns out to be considerably further away then expected so far.
However, part of the difference may also be explained when it turns out that we live in a region of the universe with a certain evolutionary state in which a relatively low number of AGNs are present (see 5-4). Therefore at a distance of 2.5 billion (big bang) light years there may be less AGNs compared to 5.8 billion (big bang) light years because the Universe is not homogeneous on smaller scales. End September 3 2007]
[June 2004: Big bang astronomers have discovered a key signpost of rapid star formation in the Cloverleaf galaxy 11 billion (big bang) light-years from Earth, using the National Science Foundation's Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescope. The scientists found a huge quantity of dense interstellar HCN gas at the greatest distance yet detected. They think that the rate of star formation is more than 300 times greater than that in our own Milky Way and similar spiral galaxies. Where there is HCN there is gas with the high density required to form stars. In galaxies like the Milky Way, dense gas traced by HCN but composed mainly of hydrogen molecules is always associated with regions of active star formation. What is different about the Cloverleaf is the huge quantity of dense gas along with very powerful infrared radiation from the star formation158.
I think that the gas is not as dense as the astronomers think, because the Cloverleaf galaxy is much further away than expected and therefore much bigger than thought so far. Thus the rate of star formation in the Cloverleaf (which may be a cluster of galaxies rather than a galaxy) may be much lower (relative to the size of the galaxy or galaxies) than they think it is. End June 2004]
[June 2004: A recent quasar study done at Gemini Observatory shows that quasars appear “to blaze forth from humdrum galaxies in the early universe”, and surprisingly, not from “the giant or disrupted ones” big bang astronomers expected121. The big bang astronomers expected that the quasar's host galaxy would be large and massive, and might show signs of having collided with another galaxy -- violence that could “spark a quasar into brilliance”. Instead, the team found that all but one of the galaxies were too faint or small to detect, even though Gemini's sensitivity and resolution were exceptionally high. The one convincing detection was “remarkably unremarkable, similar in brightness and size to the Milky Way galaxy”121.
If the high redshift quasars are much further away than expected then the host galaxies won't be detected easily of course and will be likely to be outshined by the quasars. The “giant or disrupted ones” at high redshift may be clusters of galaxies instead of galaxies. “The one convincing detection” may not have the size of the Milky Way, instead it may be a giant galaxy or a cluster of galaxies.
Big bang astronomers speak about the mystery of what happens to spiral galaxies, because views of the “early universe” show that spiral galaxies were once much more abundant in rich clusters of galaxies. According to big bang cosmology they seem to have been vanishing over cosmic time and therefore big bang astronomers wonder where these “missing bodies” have gone154.
These galaxies may have gone nowhere, the distances of those “early universe spirals” may be much further away. Those “galaxies” may not be galaxies but spiral shaped clusters of galaxies. Regular clusters have more spherical symmetry than irregular clusters and irregular clusters of galaxies are far more numerous than regular clusters6, that then may be the reason why there are more spiral shaped “galaxies” (which in reality then may be irregular clusters) in the “early universe”.
Big bangers report that when “the universe was only about 2 billion years old” they see spiral galaxies that are clearly rather large and show spiral structure similar to that seen in very nearby galaxies. They think that current theoretical big bang models have problems accounting for such galaxies having evolved to this stage so early in the life of their big bang universe196. I think those spiral objects, i.e. spiral clusters, are even very much bigger because of a much larger distance with tired light redshift.
[May 3 2005: Perhaps that a similar explanation can be used to solve another problem. Members of the European Virtual Observatory team have used the Chandra X-ray data and Hubble images to find 47 AGNs in the Hubble Deep Field North. These AGNs appeared to be seen sideways on. To the astronomers surprise only 4 of these looked like AGNs in the radio observations. The Hubble Space Telescope often reveals two or more distorted galaxies associated with these sources, suggesting that galaxy interactions were commoner when the big bang universe was young322.
The observed objects may be irregular clusters of galaxies, which appear to the big bang astronomers as AGNs seen sideways on. End May 3 2005]
An international team of astronomers has determined the colour of the (big bang) universe when it was very young. While the universe is now kind of beige, it was much bluer in the distant past, at a time when the big bang universe was only 2,5 billion years old182.
The universe at large z (for instance z=3) only appears to be bluer. What may have happened is that what the big bang astronomers took for galaxies in fact were clusters of galaxies in which the bright blue hotter regions partly outshine the less hot regions. The same happens with Blue Compact Dwarfs (BCDs), such galaxies with many concentrated bright blue stars are better seen at large distances than normal galaxies (4-1). The same too happens with QSOs, which, at very large distances, can outshine their host galaxies (4-4, 5-1).
A picture183 released by the same team of astronomers182 shows, next to bluer objects in the past, that there seem to be more galaxies in the past. First, (most of) those galaxies (at least at high redshift) may not be galaxies but clusters of galaxies. Second, probably there are no more galaxies/clusters in the past, it is just that the time scale in the picture is wrong. In the picture a lot of celestial objects seem to be concentrated in a big bang universe of 3 billion big bang years young. In reality those objects may be at distances of over 50 billion light years away. Where a lot of objects seem to be concentrated in (the big bang astronomers picture of) the big bang universe going from 2 to 4 billion years old, i.e. within a time span of 2 billion years, in reality those (at their z value differentiated) objects are much more likely to be found in a distance span of over 20 billion light years.
In the same picture there are voids between concentrations of objects, i.e. voids in the picture183 at 3, 4 and 7 billion big bang (age of the universe) years. Those voids appear to be smaller going from 7 to 4 to 3 billion big bang years. In reality those voids may be the same or (more likely, because fewer objects are observed when probing further into the universe) much bigger when going from 7 to 4 to 3 in the (big bang based) picture of the celestial objects. End June 2004]
[October 16 2006: Every year only a handful of new stars are born out of the gas that fills the space between the stars in galaxies like the Milky Way. To account for the large number of stars in the Universe today, about 400 billion in the Milky Way alone, it was thought that the stellar birth rate must have been much higher in the past. Surprisingly, in a recent study astronomers using the 8.1m Gemini telescope in Chile report that many of the largest galaxies in the Universe had a very low stellar birth rate even when the (big bang) Universe was only about 20 percent of its present age. This is a problem for big bang astronomers435. End October 16 2006]
[July 2004: UK astronomers using the 15-m James Clerk Maxwell Telescope in Hawaii have discovered enormous quantities of cosmic dust in the most distant quasar yet observed (April 2003). The quasar, called SDSS J1148+5251 is at a redshift (z) of 6.43. It was very surprising for the big bang astronomers to find large quantities of dust in the very “early universe”208.
Finding large quantities of dust at high redshifts (too) is what one expects in an infinite universe, in which everything one sees at large distances ought to be the same (overall) at intermediate and nearby distances. End July 2004]
[January 2005: NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has obtained definitive evidence that light of the distant quasar SDSSp J1306 (or J1306) has taken 12.7 billion (big bang) light years to reach Earth, only a billion years less than the estimated 13.7-billion-year age of the (big bang) universe. Big bang astronomers were surprised that in this quasar the X-ray spectrum is indistinguishable from that of nearby quasars. Previously another team of scientists using the XMM-Newton X-ray satellite observed the quasar SDSSp J1030 at a distance of 12.8 billion (big bang) light years and found essentially the same result for the X-ray spectrum. Big bang astronomers claim that Chandra's precise location and spectrum for SDSSp J1306 with nearly the same properties eliminate any lingering uncertainty that precocious supermassive “black holes” exist (precocious in the big bang universe). The existence of such massive “black holes” at this early epoch of the (big bang) universe challenges (big bang) theories of the formation of galaxies and supermassive “black holes”. Optical observations suggest that the mass of SDSSp J1306's “black hole” is about a billion solar masses266.
In an infinite universe as described on this website the mass of the compact source (or “black hole”) of SDSSp J1306 is much bigger than a billion solar masses, because the quasar is much further away with a tired light concept instead of expansion redshift. With a compact source in AGNs as described in 5-1 it is not surprising at all that the X-ray spectrum is indistinguishable from that of nearby quasars. In fact it is what one would expect, because in 5-1 the compact sources of quasars/AGNs are build up by star-like objects, like the light of galaxies is build up by stars. Big galaxies and small galaxies have stars that do not differ very much from each other, the same is likely the case with compact sources as described in 5-1. End January 2005]
[January 19 2006: A team of big bang astronomers have found a colossal black hole so ancient, they're not sure how it had enough time to grow to its current size, about 10 billion times the mass of the Sun. Sitting at the heart of a distant galaxy, the black hole appears to be about 12.7 billion years old, which means it formed just one billion years after the universe began and is one of the oldest supermassive black holes ever known381. There are more black holes causing problems for big bang astronomers382. End January 19 2006]
Part 5 (chapters 5-1 –› 5-4) argues that AGNs may be shrunk galaxies/g-galaxies.
[May 2003: My ideas about AGNs have changed so strongly since January 2002 that adding May 2003 additions is an impossible job in this part. End May 2003]
With a Leibniz/Mach/ether model instead of relativity (2-1) and pushing gravity as described in 3-2 there is no such thing as a singularity or a black hole. Also the neutron star and degenerate gas concepts may be theoretical concepts that do not exist in the universe (6-1, 6-2).
The places where conventional scientists expect to find black holes are the centers of galaxies and the centers of active galactic nuclei (AGNs, which too are the centers of galaxies). Shrunk galaxies/shrunk clusters of galaxies (universal engines, 4-1) are, of course, enormous concentrations of matter and can be expected to be found in the centers of galaxies (4-1) and (thus also) at the centers of AGNs (5-1). I think that the black hole paradigm will turn out to be untenable, it will be replaced by shrunk galaxies/shrunk clusters of galaxies for the large (billions of MSun) and medium large (millions of MSun) and by dark matter objects or clusters of dark matter objects for the small black holes.
[September 25 2005: Big bang astronomers using the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope have identified the source of a mysterious blue light surrounding a (what they think is a) supermassive black hole in our neighbouring Andromeda Galaxy (M31). The blue light is coming from a disk of hot, young stars. These stars are whipping around the black hole in much the same way as planets in our solar system are revolving around the Sun. The new observations by Hubble's Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph reveal that the blue light consists of more than 400 stars. The stars are tightly packed in a disk that is only a light-year across. The disk is nested inside an elliptical ring of older, cooler, redder stars, which was seen in previous Hubble observations.
The astronomers are perplexed about how the pancake-shaped disk of stars could form so close to a giant black hole. In such a hostile environment, the black hole's tidal forces should tear matter apart, making it difficult for gas and dust to collapse and form stars. By finding the disk of stars, astronomers also have collected what they say is ironclad evidence for the existence of a monster black hole. The evidence has helped astronomers to rule out all alternative theories for the dark mass in the Andromeda Galaxy's core, they say. The big bang astronomers claim that they are sure they are not dealing with dark clusters of dead stars instead of a black hole. They say their observations are so precise that they eliminated all other possibilities for what the central, dark object could be. They also calculated that the black hole's mass is 140 million Suns, which is three times more massive than once thought. “Andromeda is the first galaxy in which we can exclude all exotic alternatives to a black hole,” they say. “But now that we have proven that the black hole is at the centre of the disk of blue stars, the formation of these stars becomes hard to understand. Gas that might form stars must spin around the black hole so quickly - and so much more quickly near the black hole than farther out - that star formation looks almost impossible. But the stars are there.”370.
Big bang researchers think in times of 14 billion years. If you think of an infinite universe then many darkened stars may have approached each other very slowly over hundreds of billions of years. In that case you will get very different calculations where it comes to clusters of dark stars (many more small stars packed in a very small volume of space). On this website it is suggested that there may be remnants of very old shrunken galaxies in the centers of galaxies (4-1).
Perhaps there is a very old spiral galaxy (or very old cluster of galaxies) in the center of the Andromeda Galaxy, which then may account for the disks with (blue and red) stars: left overs of old spiral arms. Another possibility is that the disk(s) of stars came into existence with stars-swinging-themselves-around-a-big-central-mass, as mentioned on this website when it comes to solar system formation (but then with planets instead of stars, 7-1). End September 25 2005]
[January 23 2006: Researchers have found that a certain type of X-ray explosion common on neutron stars is never seen around their black hole cousins, as if the gas that fuels these explosions has vanished into a void. This is strong evidence, the researchers say, for the existence of a theoretical border around a black hole called an event horizon, a point from beyond which nothing, not even light, can escape392.
There may be a good reason that a certain type of X-ray explosion common on neutron stars is never seen around what (by big bang astronomers) is expected to be a black hole. Perhaps the researched objects that are supposed to be black holes consist of many relatively small dark matter objects circling around each other. In that case much gas can be transported to the many objects before anything shows up in the form of light.
When new physics come to the front, like the (in my opinion) unavoidable pushing gravity (3-2), then theoretical objects that are now taken for granted by conventional scientists, like black holes, neutron stars and white dwarfs, have to be re-calculated. It then may turn out that some (perhaps all) of those objects, i.e. black holes, neutron stars and white dwarfs, are not theoretical possible within the new physics. But of course, I can't say what will be the outcome of such new calculations. Perhaps that also with pushing gravity one may get objects having such strong gravity that light can not escape the object. I don't see it as likely, but I certainly can't predict the outcome of the (in my opinion) unavoidable re-calculation of black holes (and neutron stars and white dwarfs), I have to admit that. End January 23 2006]
All AGNs may share the same basic mechanism: a universal engine (4-1), a rotating core of “dark” matter objects which has established itself in a stable and enduring form. The very core of the universal engine may be very dense with many massive dark matter objects orbiting each other at small distances. Massive dark matter objects may have become massive by merging (imagine for instance Sagittarius A* in the nucleus of our Galaxy to merge into one very massive object). Further away from the very core of the universal engine very many smaller dark matter objects may orbit the universal engine (the outer regions may form a starburst disk, 5-1). Perhaps that the nuclear bulge of our Milky Way (or the Milky way as a whole) can become an AGN in the far future (5-4).
[October 2003: Also Mitchell75 has suggested that AGNs may be shrunk galaxies. End October 2003]
Observations of Seyferts seem to reveal that the kinematic centers of AGNs are at the centers of the AGNs, which is, of course, easy to understand with a rotating universal engine at the very core of an AGN.
Perhaps massive (heavy element) dark matter objects get heated by gravitational contraction, which then may produce thermal blackbody optical/UV/X/gamma-rays coming from the central source of AGNs (which then, of course, makes those “dark” matter objects not dark at all anymore).
And: hydrogen gas, attracted by the universal engine from intergalactic space (4-1), may fall towards the universal engine which then will cause starbursts, producing optical/UV/X-ray radiation in a nuclear bulge or a disk (5-1) surrounding the very core of the universal engine (hydrogen may not fall into the very core (= central source/continuum source) of the universal engine because of radiation pressure by the “big ball”, 5-1).
[March 27 2006: Recent work by big bang astronomers points out that inflow of gas into the central region of a galaxy or merging galaxies may cause a quasar (in the center of a host galaxy) to be born. Later the quasar phase may end because a lot of gas has been blown out of the galaxy again causing the galaxy to settle down to a relatively quiet non-AGN-life410. Such way of looking at AGN-formation is described throughout this webpage. End March 27 2006]
The starburst-AGN connection of Terlevich and collaborators43 has two problems: accounting for rapid X-ray variability and radio-loud activity. My AGN model has a central object, thus my model comes close to the hybrid model: a starburst-connection with a central source (i.e. universal engine core, not a black hole). A universal engine core as a central source may account for high-energy radiation (5-1), X-ray variability (5-1), a BLR region (5-1) and radio loudness (5-2).
[February 2004: Perhaps there is also a possibility that AGNs can come to existence without a galaxy as a progenitor (3-2). End February 2004]
If universal engines are the cause of AGN activity then studying the properties of the galactic nucleus of our Galaxy (with a universal engine in it, 4-3) may reveal a lot about the mechanisms in AGNs that produce all kind of AGN features. Thus it may be no coincidence that the galactic nucleus of our Milky Way has some of the characteristics of AGNs.
[June 2004: I think that Sgr A* can easily be looked upon as a former AGN (5-1). This would explain why the “black hole” in the center of our Milky Way (i.e. Sgr A*) is so much smaller than “black holes” of AGNs: the old AGN has shrunk and radiated away very much matter and “spat out” very much material, so eventually it has lost very much of its previous mass and the (smaller) objects of the old AGN compact source have become colder. (Though, perhaps that Sgr A* is an old (shrunken) starburst region of an AGN.) Perhaps that Sgr A* is an old quasar (Sgr A* may have been a quasar when our Milky Way was an elliptical galaxy, 4-3, 5-3).
Our Galaxy may have contained an AGN once (5-3). Sgr A* is the center of our Galaxy (4-1) and the kinematic centers of AGNs (seem to) lie in the centers of AGNs (5-1). Sgr A* may be the (old) kinematic center (i.e. compact source) of an old AGN (or perhaps rather the heart of Sgr A* may be the (old) kinematic center (compact source) of an old AGN). Where big bang astronomers consider Sgr A* to be a “starved black hole which is definitely on a severe diet”220 I see Sgr A* as (the center of) an old galaxy or an old cluster of galaxies (i.e. g-galaxy) that has shrunken very much and that may have had an AGN period, but which is not getting fuelled (anymore) with a lot of gas. End June 2004]
[July 2004: Though, perhaps Sgr A* can be the remains of an old elliptical giant galaxy that was once in the center of a cluster of galaxies. The rest of the old cluster of galaxies then may be the center of the nuclear bulge that surrounds Sgr A*. (Perhaps then that in the very center of Sgr A* the remains of an old AGN can be found.)
When the heart of Sgr A* has been an AGN then perhaps Sgr A* may become a compact source of an AGN in the future (5-1). End July 2004]
Many scientists think that there is a black hole in the galactic nucleus of the Milky Way, especially concerning Sagittarius A*.
Recent observations with X-ray and radio waves have pointed out that radio source Sagittarius A* has 2.6 x 106 sun masses229 in a sphere with a diameter of 1 AU. If all this mass would be present in dark matter masses of Earth magnitude (= 6 x 1024 kg) then we get 8.7 x 1011 dark matter objects of Earth-magnitude in a sphere with a diameter of 1 AU. This means that for every “earth” there is a “sphere of space” with a radius of 15,600 km.
With the Earth having a radius of 6,387 km, this would mean that 93% of the space within Sagittarius A* is empty space, which literally may mean: enough space for rotating dark matter, i.e. there is space for a universal engine as described in 4-1 with many dark matter objects rotating around a central point.
(The densities in our Earth are relatively low, as is the mass magnitude of our Earth. Much larger dark matter objects thus will have more “space” in the above mentioned “Sag A* sphere”.)
Of course, in order to have an engine that can give the enormous power that is able to structure our (spiral-shaped) Galaxy (4-3) one way or the other there must be things of an amazing magnitude, like mass of magnitude 2.6 million MSun in a sphere with a diameter of 1 AU. [July 2004: Though, it remains to be seen how much the center of a galaxy shapes the stars in the galaxy directly by gravitational forces and how much the spiral is shaped by gas that rotates in a disk by gravitational forces (caused by a rotating center, 4-3). End July 2004]
With all kind of dark matter masses with all kind of orbiting speeds there will be a lot of clashing between dark matter objects, which may explain the huge amounts of dust in the galactic nucleus. But also: supernovae in the galactic nucleus will cause dust, and outboard dust may have been attracted from outside the galactic nucleus by the universal engine; and inboard dust from supernovae and clashing dark matter objects (outside the galactic nucleus) may have been sucked into the galactic nucleus from within the Galaxy (4-4).
Dust may cause polarization of light coming from the galactic nucleus as well as infrared radiation. Large groups of dark matter objects orbiting the very core of the galactic nucleus may cause variability by obscuration and microlensing (5-1) and they may cause microwave radiation by black body radiation (5-1).
Hydrogen may fall into the universal engine (4-3) and fall on (smaller and cold) dark matter objects, thus bringing O and OB stars and hot coronal gasses. HII and electrons may bring thermal bremsstrahlung and synchrotron radiation (sources that dominate radio maps of the overall galactic center region appear, when investigated at different wavelengths, to have characteristics of HII regions8).
[January 24 2006: It is a problem for big bang astronomers how stars can form so efficiently in a place like the galactic center, because it is hard for them to see how stars are still able to form in an environment with unusually strong magnetic fields and tidal shear forces394.
If our galactic center once was an old cluster of galaxies (4-1) then a lot of old darkened stars are around in the galactic center, or/and if our galaxy is much older than expected because it once was an elliptical galaxy (4-3) then a lot of old darkened stars of the old elliptical may be in the center of the galaxy. Such old remnants of stars may attract gas by gravity (7-1), thus forming new stars. End January 24 2006]
Thus, it may not be 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 rays8.
Thus, taking the galactic nucleus of our Galaxy as a laboratory for finding out about AGN activity may bring us (a great deal of) the mechanisms that makes AGNs so bright in all kind of wavelengths, from gamma radiation to radio radiation.
High-energy radiation by gravitational contraction of huge compact heavy element objects (“dark” objects) may be something taking place on a very small scale in our galactic nucleus relative to AGNs (5-1).
The X-ray emission from the nucleus of our Galaxy is expected to come from hot coronal gasses by thermal bremsstrahlung and gamma rays are expected to be caused by electron-positron annihilation. Conventional science considers both ways of radiation production to be possibly at work in AGNs43, though the origin of X-ray and gamma ray emission in AGNs is not understood43.
But perhaps it remains to be seen whether the explanations of X-rays and gamma rays coming from the galactic nucleus are right (5-1).
The X-ray map from the galactic center can roughly be seen as a circle, but this circle consists of discrete sources. If we would see our Galaxy from further away then perhaps these discrete sources would have been thought to be one source. The radiation coming from AGNs may come from many discrete sources with different temperatures, thus spectra can be flat and of a non-black body type, while the radiation is thermal black body radiation (5-1).
Right now X-ray sources in the galactic nucleus are suggested by conventional science to be due to hot coronal gasses. Could those sources be heated up dark matter? If the nucleus of our Galaxy contains an old g-galaxy then there must be many old and massive dark matter objects in the galactic nucleus, which may be heated up strongly by gravitational contraction, which thus may account for (part of the) X-ray radiation as well as (part of the) gamma radiation coming from the galactic nucleus.
Though: there is no BRL (see hereafter) in the galactic nucleus, thus hydrogen can fall into the nucleus and thus all dark matter objects may have assembled hydrogen (though, perhaps not if hydrogen is kept away from the glowing “dark” matter objects by radiation pressure). Thus glowing of dark matter objects by gravitational contraction may not be likely and X-ray emission indeed may rather come from hot gas heated by stars.
But: certain stars may have very big heavy metal cores that can contract a thin layer of gas surrounding the big heavy metal core very strongly. Thus white dwarfs may be stars with a big heavy metal core that fuse gas in a relatively thin layer. A thin layer will produce a much higher temperature at the surface of such a star (6-2).
[June 2004: Recently ESA's Integral gamma-ray observatory has resolved the diffuse glow of gamma rays in the center of our Galaxy and has shown that most of it is produced by a hundred individual sources. Integral's gamma-ray telescope IBIS has seen clearly that, instead of a fog produced by the interstellar medium, most of the gamma-rays are coming from individual celestial objects. For more than thirty years, other telescopes had seen nothing but a mysterious, blurry fog of gamma rays. The discovery of 91 gamma-ray sources towards the direction of the Galactic centre therefore was reported. Much to the big bang astronomers surprise, almost half of these sources do not fall in any class of known gamma-ray objects. They are thought to represent a new population of gamma-ray emitters131.
More recent research once again points out that the galactic center of our Milky Way may be an excellent road to gain good understanding when it comes to AGNs. A long look by NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has revealed new evidence that extremely hot gas exists in a large region at the center of the Milky Way. The intensity and spectrum of the high-energy X-rays produced by this gas present a puzzle as to how it is being heated191. The discovery came to light as a team of astronomers, led by Michael Muno of UCLA used Chandra's unique resolving power to study a region about 100 light years across and painstakingly remove the contributions from 2,357 point-like X-ray sources due to white dwarfs, foreground stars, background galaxies and, what they see as, neutron stars and black holes (both neutron stars and black holes may be theoretical outgrowths of relativity and a misunderstanding of gravity, 5-1). What remained was an irregular, diffuse glow from a 10-million-degree Celsius gas cloud, embedded in a glow of higher-energy X-rays with a spectrum characteristic of 100-million-degree gas. They think that the best explanation for the Chandra data is that the high-energy X-rays come from an extremely hot gas cloud, which, according to the team, brings significant shortcoming in understanding of heat sources in the center of our Galaxy (where it comes to big bang cosmology), the source of the heating remains a puzzle. The high-energy diffuse X-rays from the center of the Galaxy appear to be the brightest part of a ridge of X-ray emission observed by Chandra and previous X-ray observatories to extend for several thousand light years along the disk of the Galaxy. The extent of this hot ridge implies that it is probably not being heated by the supermassive “black hole” at the center of the Milky Way.
Big bang scientists have speculated that magnetic turbulence produced by supernova shock waves can heat the gas to 100 million degrees. Alternatively, high-energy protons and electrons produced by supernova shock waves could be the heat source. However, both these possibilities have problems big bang astronomers agree. They say that the spectrum is not consistent with heating by high-energy particles, the observed magnetic field in the Galactic center does not have the proper structure, and the rate of supernova explosions does not appear to be frequent enough to provide the necessary heating.
The big bang team also considered whether the high-energy X-rays only appear to be diffuse, and are in fact due to the combined glow of an as yet undetected population of point-like sources, like the diffuse lights of a city seen at a great distance. The difficulty with this explanation is that 200,000 sources would be required in the observed region. Although the total number of stars in this region is about 30 million, the number of stars of the type expected to produce X-rays at the required power and energy is estimated to be only 20 thousand. Further, such a large unresolved population of sources would produce a much smoother X-ray glow than is observed. The team says that there is no known class of objects that could account for such a large number of high-energy X-ray sources at the Galactic center191.
I think that celestial objects with a high percentage of dark matter (i.e. with a high amount of (very) heavy elements in the core of the objects) may cause such objects to have high temperatures responsible for high energy rays.
Perhaps that such very hot objects can be (some sort of) pulsars with an extremely short pulse time. For instance, Cygnus X-1, a strong X-ray source, flickers rapidly, in less than 0.001 second. Perhaps that objects with a very fast pulsar mechanism can be the gamma-ray/X-ray sources in the center of our Galaxy (6-1). Perhaps there is also the possibility that objects can be heated by gravitational contraction without a pulsar mechanism (i.e. without an endothermic reaction), thus bringing very hot celestial objects (5-1).
With shrunken concentrated old galaxies in the center of major galaxies one may expect to find many “dark” (merged) matter objects in those centers, which thus may account for (observed) X-ray/gamma-ray sources in the center of our Galaxy.
Though, “dark” (merged) matter objects can be found in all kind of galaxies when stars in galaxies come to existence because gas assembles around (old) dark matter objects (7-1). Therefore it may not be surprising that X-ray sources are found in various locations in elliptical as well as spiral galaxies135 (which are a puzzle for big bang astronomers).
When such X-ray objects indeed are due to “dark” (merged) matter objects then they should be found too in certain (very) old (nonluminous) g-galaxies, which is something that may be confirmed one day: X-ray sources in intergalactic/intercluster space (i.e. in nonluminous g-galaxies). End June 2004]
[January 2005: To peer into the galactic center astronomers have used the 6.5-meter-diameter Magellan Telescope in Chile. By gathering infrared light that more easily penetrates dust, the astronomers were able to detect thousands of stars that otherwise would have remained hidden. Their goal was to identify stars that orbit, and feed, X-ray-emitting white dwarfs, neutron stars or black holes - any of which could yield the faint X-ray sources discovered originally with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory. Chandra previously detected more than 2000 X-ray sources in the central 75 light-years of our galaxy. About four-fifths of the sources emitted mostly hard (high-energy) X-rays. The precise nature of those hard X-ray sources remained a mystery. Two possibilities were suggested by big bang astronomers: 1) high-mass X-ray binary systems, containing a neutron star or black hole with a massive stellar companion; or, 2) cataclysmic variables, containing a highly magnetized white dwarf with a low-mass stellar companion.
The astronomers now have found that the galactic center Chandra sources are probably low-mass binaries. Since by far the most common low-mass binaries with X-ray luminosities, spectra, and variability similar to the galactic center Chandra sources are accreting magnetic white dwarfs, the astronomers conclude white dwarfs are the most likely identification269.
Thus, my previous suggestion (5-1) that the X-ray sources in our galactic center may be white dwarfs (because our galactic center may be likely to contain a lot of old remnants of stars, i.e. dark matter objects, that get fuelled with gas flowing to the galactic center) may be right. Though, another possibility may be celestial objects (bigger/heavier than white dwarfs) with a high percentage of dark matter (i.e. with a high amount of (very) heavy elements in the core of the objects) may cause such objects to have high temperatures responsible for high energy rays (5-1, 5-1). End January 2005]
The majority of the larger spiral galaxies radiate in the radio continuum8, which may be due to larger spirals having stronger universal engines that are more likely to be capable of AGN activity.
One may wonder why there is so little AGN activity in the nucleus of our Galaxy. Perhaps this can be (partly) explained by gravitational shielding (3-2, 5-1) by all the matter surrounding the nucleus (and “pulling” at the nucleus). Once a lot of matter is radiated away (by nuclear processes) contraction of the nucleus may speed up, which may trigger stronger AGN activity.
Eventually, the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy may shrink into a “big bal” of very many objects in a small volume (for instance as big as our Solar System) that starts to show AGN activity. Or, in general: AGNs may descend from galaxies or g-galaxies. The centers (universal engines, 4-1) of galaxies or g-galaxies (4-1) may show AGN activity from certain (“galactic-evolutionary”) moments.
[February 2004: With tired light redshift instead of expansion redshift a lot of AGNs may be further away than expected so far (5-3). This may mean that the compact sources of AGN may be bigger than expected so far. Also because estimates by light flux variations may be different: 5-1. End February 2004]
[July 2004: Though, perhaps that an object like Sagittarius A* can become the compact source of an AGN too. End July 2004]
A big ball (which often may be a little oval) of “dark” matter objects/stars, with (most) merging taking place in the core, may explain why hotter and hotter radiation is found when going from the outside of the AGN nucleus, i.e. big ball/“compact” source, to the inside: if massive dark matter objects contract strongly by gravity and thus start glowing at (extremely) high temperatures, or: if massive dark matter objects have a thin layer of gas that contracts strong enough to fuse into higher elements (5-1).
Perhaps that temperatures raised by gravitational contraction of dark matter objects can go up to 1010 K or even higher (5-2) if no or little hydrogen surrounds the dark matter objects. Hydrogen may be radiated away from the “big ball” by radiation pressure, see hereafter at The Broad-Line Region (5-1).
Thus gravitational contraction may cause enormous fluxes of high-energy thermal black body radiation (UV, X-ray and gamma ray).
[February 2004: Though, big objects with big heavy element cores may bring different fusion processes (7-1), which may bring very high (surface) temperatures. Surface temperatures of objects may also become very high when fusion processes take place in an object with a big heavy element core and a relatively thin gas mantle (6-2).
A hot extremely bright X-ray object has been observed in the spiral galaxy NGC 163780, which may be hot because of a so far unknown fusion process or because of a relatively thin gas mantle (or because of gravitational contraction, 5-1). End February 2004]
[June 2004: Or by a very fast pulsar mechanism (5-1). Perhaps that the heavier a pulsating object is the more luminous and hotter it is as well as the faster it pulses with a pulsar mechanism (6-1).
Recently another bright X-ray source was discovered in the dwarf irregular galaxy Holmberg II. Big bang astronomers found that the mystery source sends out X-rays evenly in all directions at a tremendous rate, shining one million times brighter in X-rays than the Sun shines at all wavelengths of light combined172. I think that a big object with very heavy metals is the basic key to unravel the mystery of such objects rather than the “black hole” concept of big bang astronomers (see also 4-4). End June 2004]
[June 2004: Chandra X-ray observatory observations in 2001 indicate the presence of an unusually bright X-ray source in the star cluster MGG11 in the starburst galaxy M82124. Big bang astronomers think that the properties of the X-ray source are best explained by a black hole with a mass of about a thousand times the mass of the Sun. When such objects are rather to be explained by so far unknown fusion processes, relatively thin gas mantles or by gravitational contraction then such objects (and bigger, producing hotter radiation like gamma rays) are likely much more to be found when huge numbers of objects are concentrated within a very small volume of space as suggested here, i.e. such hot objects then are likely to be found in the here mentioned “big balls” and therefore may explain the huge amounts of high temperature radiation in compact sources of AGNs. End June 2004]
[March 29 2005: There are so-called ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) that radiate 10 to 1000 times more X-ray power than what big bang astronomers call neutron stars and stellar mass black holes. Some big bang astronomers believe these mysterious ULXs are more powerful because they are intermediate mass black holes. Other big bang astronomers think ULXs are regular stellar-mass black holes that appear to be much more powerful in X-rays because their radiation is beamed in a jet toward Earth304.
I think such objects descent from old (burned out) clusters of stars, like super star clusters (4-4), globular clusters or even dwarf ellipticals. Of course, I don't think those objects are “black holes” (5-1).
Big bang astronomers used Chandra to observe a ULX in the galaxy Messier 74 (M74), which is about 32 million light years from Earth. They found that this source exhibits strong, nearly periodic variations in its X-ray brightness every two hours304. This may hint towards a minor “big ball” (5-1), i.e. a minor compact source (this time not of an AGN). End March 29 2005]
A big ball, for instance with the size of our Solar System, filled with very many (slightly different) rotating/orbiting objects that may have their own peculiar velocities (4-1), may emit all kind of radiation in enormous amounts. This is my basic mechanism explaining the compact sources of AGNs. Of course, this “big ball” does not necessarily have to be extremely spherical.
AGNs show a high-energy cut-off at energies of around a few hundred keV43 (conventional AGN models have problems explaining this high-energy cut-off44). At energies higher than a few hundred keV, with a few notable exceptions such as NGC 4151, only blazar-type objects have been detected.
A few hundred keV corresponds with a thermal black body temperature of 1010-1011 K. Higher temperatures than 1010-1011 K may not be possible, at least not on the outside/surface of an object, for elements then may degrade. According to big bang cosmology8 protons and neutrons are constantly transformed into each other by interactions with neutrinos and electron-positron pairs above 1010 K. Thus 1010-1012 K may be a critical temperature range explaining the high-energy cut-off of AGNs.
Inside a heavy object temperatures may be higher than 1012 K (5-2).
There may be a difference between objects in an AGN “big ball”/compact source that have a gas mantle (perhaps in “big balls”/compact sources of all AGNs except BL Lacertae objects) and objects in an AGN “big ball”/compact source that don't have a gas mantle (perhaps in the “big balls”/compact sources of BL Lacertae objects, 5-3).
When a BLR prohibits hydrogen/gas to fall into the “big ball” (5-1) then this does not necessarily mean that the hydrogen/gas (that originally was) in the big ball (see also at Ionization cones, 5-1) has been processed into higher elements or has been thrown out by radiation pressure. Massive dark matter objects may have big gravitational pull on a relatively small layer of hydrogen/gas, thus radiation pressure by the glowing object may not be high enough to get rid of the hydrogen, while the pressure on the hydrogen by gravitational pull may not be high enough to produce nuclear fusion reactions. Thus most AGNs may have hydrogen/gas layers surrounding the objects in the compact source. (BL Lacertae objects may be an exception and therefore BL Lacertae object continuums may reach higher temperatures, 5-3.)
Though: in BLRs gas is pushed away from the compact source, but part of the BLR gas may fall into the compact source, which may mean that the objects in the compact source radiate (too) by nuclear fusion of gases (5-1).
The highest temperatures of AGNs are likely to be found at the very core of the central source of AGNs (i.e. the very core of the “big ball”) and from the very core to the more outer regions of the compact source/"big ball"/continuum source the temperature will go down. At a certain distance from the continuum source the starburst region may show up. The starburst region then may be the region where gas is not pushed away by radiation pressure of the continuum source anymore.
In the original galaxy or g-galaxy that originated the AGN there may have been many old galaxies/dark matter objects forming a rotating disk around the very (compact central) core of the galaxy/g-galaxy. When outboard gas from far away falls into the galaxy/g-galaxy much of the gas will be “caught” by the dark matter objects that form that disk. Thus a disk-shaped starburst region may be formed. An example of such a disk may be seen in the nearest active galaxy to Earth, Centaurus A; the disk was imaged by the Hubble Space Telescope in 199845.
[July 2003: If the nuclear bulge [July 2004: (or perhaps Sagittarius A*) End July 2004] of our Galaxy turns into the compact source of an AGN in the far future (5-1) then the spiral arms of our Galaxy may become a future disk-shaped starburst region when our Galaxy gets fuelled with hydrogen from intergalactic space. End July 2003]
Between the central source and the starburst region then may lie the Broad Line Region (5-1).
Unlike spectra of stars and galaxies, AGN spectra can not be described in terms of blackbody emission at a single temperature, or as a composite over a small range in temperature. Non-thermal processes, primarily synchrotron radiation, were thus invoked early to explain quasar spectra43.
But the situation becomes different when one looks at AGN compact sources as big balls of rotating mass objects that have all kind of temperatures. Many different objects, with different temperatures over a broad range, may produce spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of AGNs that can be characterized crudely as a power-law.
A big ball of rotating (causing variability) hot “dark” matter objects (together with colder parts/objects in the central source) may account for long-term as well as short-term variability of the AGN radiation (short-term variability may also be caused by supernovae as described in the starburst-AGN connection model).
When the radiation flux from hot heavy objects in the center of the AGN compact source is changed by objects further away from the center passing in front of them (or the center of the central source, which may be likely to have a higher rotation rate like the Sun rotates faster than the planets orbit, catching up) then the X-ray radiation continuum flux from the central core may change first, followed by UV and optical radiation coming from gas in BLR/starburst region.
There may be 4 types of mechanisms that cause variability:
Inside the very core of the big ball the biggest objects may be found that have the highest temperatures by gravitational contraction (or nuclear fusion within a thin layer). Further away smaller objects may cause lower frequency radiation. Variations may be caused either by rotation of the central source (thus bringing different objects to view) or by orbiting (and hence microlensing or/and view-blocking/obscuring) objects that lay more outward. One may think about variability as an inverse camera obscura effect. Instead of light going in (the camera obscura) light comes out because the hot inside emits hot radiation that can peak through the outside wall of colder objects, thus accounting for variability of the X-ray/UV/optical continuum.
[October 2003: (This may mean that the compact central sources of AGNs are much larger than expected so far: due to the time intervals of the light flux variations the compact central sources of AGNs are estimated to be one light day to one light week in diameter43,75. The diameters may be much larger with an “inverse camera obscura mechanism” and/or mechanisms like obscuration or microlensing that may cause flux variations of the continuum.) End October 2003]
Such variations will be larger for massive hot objects laying more in the inner region of the central source, hence high-energy light will show stronger variability. Lower high-energy light is emitted by smaller and more numerous objects laying more outward, thus lower radiation will show less strong variability. But also: hot radiation may heat more outward laying material which emits the radiation later at a lower frequency, which too may account for larger variations at shorter wavelengths as well as why smaller-scale (few percent) variations that are seen in the UV on short time scales seem to be smoothed out at longer wavelengths.
One should keep in mind that the compact (central) source of an AGN may consist of a high number of old (merged?) galaxies/g-galaxies that still may have, in a way, their own peculiar orbiting/rotation velocities while orbiting the very core of the compact source (4-1), which may cause the variability's in fluxes to be non-periodic (perhaps over long times some periodicities may be found in some AGNs). And: if inside laying cores rotate in a different way (for instance: faster) than more outward laying cores then the variability in fluxes will be non-periodic (but perhaps not over very long times).
Variability by (more outwards laying) (concentrated groups of) objects may be caused by 2 mechanisms:
A. (old galaxies/g-galaxies/concentrated groups of) objects block radiation, thus decreasing radiation from the inner core
B. (old galaxies/g-galaxies/concentrated groups of) objects act as gravitational lenses, thus increasing radiation from the inner core
So far an important means of discriminating microlensing from intrinsic variability is that a microlensing event would have the same amplitude at all wavelengths (in general, intrinsic variations in AGNs are larger at higher frequencies)43. This is not true if one takes a “cloud” of dark matter objects as the “object” that passes in front of the AGN. Multiple dark matter objects will cause larger intrinsic variations for light that comes from more inner parts of the AGN, i.e. light with higher frequencies.
If rapid variability in gravitationally lensed QSOs is attributed to microlensing by intervening objects in the foreground, then the surface-brightness distribution of the QSO continuum-emitting region must be very compact in order for the variations to be fast and of detectable amplitude43. In the here described model AGNs can have extremely compact continuum-emitting regions.
Rapid X-ray variability may be explained by obscuration and microlensing, but perhaps also by: heavy compact objects may show pulsing qualities (5-2, 6-1, 6-2).
The variations in the X-ray continuum are apparently correlated with variations at UV/optical wavelengths. It is often suggested that the UV/optical spectrum is a reprocessed version of the X-ray spectrum. The above mentioned mechanism with gas in the BLR/starburst region (which lies days from the central source) reprocessing the X-rays from the central source may be the answer. The BLR region is (light)days away from the central source, which may explain why UV/optical variations often show up after a few days. UV/optical variations thus may show up with less strong/sharp variability than the originating X-ray variability.
In AGNs with no BLR the UV/optical variations thus may follow the X-ray variations sooner, i.e. (almost) simultaneous (because the gas is not pushed away from the compact/continuum source).
[January 2005: Miller and Homan, for the first time, found a connection between two characteristics of “black hole” observations: quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) and the broad iron K line. QPOs refer to the way the X-ray light seems to flicker. Using the Rossi Explorer, Miller and Homan studied a predominantly X-ray radiating object named GRS 1915+105, about 40,000 light years away in the constellation Aquila, the Eagle. They noticed that a low-frequency QPO of 1 to 2 hertz was tied to changes in the broad iron K line, as if the two features knew of each other. The fact that the two signals were in synch and were unaffected by other phenomena-such as “black hole” jet activity-strongly suggests that both are occurring very close to the “black hole”. And this, the big bang scientists say, rules out a theory stating that broad iron lines are created in “black hole” winds far from the object itself270.
Perhaps that the iron atoms are in a kind of Broad Line Region (5-1) surrounding the object and that the shape of the iron line is a function of the X-ray radiation/flickering of the object. The object may be likely to be a compact object, i.e. no “big ball”, with a pulsing quality. Though, perhaps that the X-ray flickering may be because multiple X-ray emitting objects spin around each other very quickly at a very short distance, or perhaps that one X-ray emitting object gets obscured or/and microlensed by orbiting objects that do not emit X-rays. End January 2005]
In the outer regions of the central source many small dark matter objects may have very low temperatures, which then may cause microwaves or even (short wave) radio waves coming from the outer regions of the central source. Of course, no temperatures below 2.73 can be expected to be found easily, which limits the range of possible radio radiation by thermal black body radiation. Though, perhaps lower temperatures than 2.73 are possible with a cooling down mechanism as described with pulsars in 6-1. Thus perhaps it remains to be seen if the radio spectra of compact AGN sources do not have a thermal origin, as is strongly believed by conventional astronomy. The lowest possible temperature may then cause the low-energy cut-off of radio waves from compact AGN sources. [July 2004: The Boomerang Nebula has a temperature of 1 Kelvin and is the only object found so far (July 2004) that has a temperature lower than the background radiation215. So there is the possibility of objects with very low temperatures. In 6-1 it is suggested that the cause of the low temperature may be merging of dark matter objects (of two stars). The outer region of the compact source of an AGN may contain a lot of dark matter objects (and stars) which may get very low temperatures by merging of the dark matter objects (within the stars). End July 2004]
In our galactic nucleus Sgr A* is considered (by conventional astronomy) to be a nonthermal pointlike radio source, which thus may be doubted too.
[July 2003: Also: one may wonder whether sources like Sag A* and (thermal) (radio) sources in AGNs may have very strong gravitational redshift (5-4), which may cause radiation to be of (a little) lower temperature. End July 2003]
[May 2004: The in this chapter described mechanisms that can cause variability in what conventional science describes as “massive black holes” may also cause strong variability in Sgr A*119. End May 2004]
[June 2004: Sgr A* can be seen as an old AGN at the center of an old spiral galaxy Sgr A West (4-1). Fast X-ray variability (4-1) can be explained by a hot objects in the inner core of Sgr A*. The (X-ray) light coming from the inner core then would peep out every now and then through “holes” within the surrounding wall of less hot objects (5-1) and fast (though less fast than the X-ray variability) infrared variability125 then may come from objects (and/or dust) further away from the core of Sgr A*. Infrared temperature objects(/dust) may be surrounded by a less thick wall of lower temperature objects/dust (producing radio radiation). End June 2004]
With the here described model of AGN-nuclei being formed by enormous balls, i.e. compact sources, and disks, i.e. starburst regions, of old (“dark”) matter (plus attracted starburst-hydrogen) it is not surprising that AGNs show such enormous radiation fluxes and that their surface brightness is very high (especially the surface brightness of the compact source).
Those enormous balls/disks can originate from: a galaxy that has shrunk, a cluster of galaxies that has shrunken, but also a supercluster or even a supersupercluster that has shrunken (for compact sources to originate: shrinking and merging).
[September 3 2007: If AGNs descend from shrunken galaxies or shrunken clusters of galaxies which are extremely old, then one can imagine that there may be AGNs that have much old blackened stars and remnants of old blackened stars (with much dust and rocks) surrounding them. In fact there may be so much dark obscuring material in the from of dust, rocks, planets, dark stars, etc. that the AGN may be obscured by it. Recently such AGNs have been found. An international team of astronomers using NASA's Swift satellite and the Japanese/U.S. Suzaku X-ray observatory has discovered a new class of AGN. The AGNs are so heavily shrouded in obscuring material (which may be gas, dust, rocks, planets, old darkened stars, etc.) that virtually no light gets out of the AGN. The AGNs were found by looking for high-energy X-rays which can punch through thick gas and dust. The team thinks these newly discovered AGNs are completely surrounded by a shell of obscuring material. Their results imply that there must be a large number of yet unrecognized obscured AGNs in the local universe. In fact, these objects might comprise about 20 percent of point sources comprising the X-ray background, a glow of X-ray radiation that pervades our Universe. NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has found that this background is actually produced by huge numbers of AGNs, but Chandra was unable to identify the nature of all the sources463. End September 3 2007]
All kind of old dark matter clustering magnitudes, i.e. galaxies/g-galaxies, can bring AGNs in all kind of magnitudes. Thus one can imagine that quasars for instance can be found at very high redshifts and that a quasar at z=5 can have an enormous output of radiation. [July 2003: I think a little different about this now, because I have realized that the redshift of quasars may also be due to gravitational redshift (5-4) next to tired light redshift. End July 2003]
[May 2004: Though, I rather see quasars as extremely far away because of tired light redshift than as near because of gravitational redshift, 5-4. Also: perhaps that the nuclear bulge or even part of a nuclear bulge of a galaxy like our Milky Way can turn into the compact source of an AGN. End May 2004]
And: with the tired light hypothesis instead of expansion redshift (1-2) quasars are even much further away than expected so far (no more relativistic z-distance calculation, 5-3). Thus quasars with high redshifts may be even much more luminous than expected so far.
This may explain why quasars are rare at higher redshifts (i.e. higher than z=3.5). A very luminous quasar may (have to) originate from a large “object” like a supercluster or even a supersupercluster. A (super)supercluster shrinking to a universal engine would not be likely to occur often. Though perhaps we may see a lot of them the day telescopes pierce dramatically deeper into space.
(With tired light redshift it may be so that light redshifts more when going through space with relative more mass in it, like our Local Supercluster region. Thus light that goes mostly through large empty nonluminous voids may redshift less, compared to light coming from an object in our Local Supercluster. If so then this would mean that quasars with high redshift values may be at even further distances with even bigger fluxes.) [July 2004: This effect may have been measured: light going through rich galaxy clusters redshifts stronger (1-2). End July 2004]
It is observed that increasing luminosity of quasars corresponds to increasing metallicity in the emission line region. In the here described model increasing luminosity comes with larger amounts of dark matter (with heavy elements) which then may account for increasing metallicity (many dark matter objects will often clash, thus producing much dust/higher metallicity; but also: dark matter objects may produce supernova Type Ia, 5-2). [July 2003: In the case the high redshift of a quasar is caused by the quasar being far away then the quasar has a high luminosity which means that a lot of dark matter should be in the quasar or else the quasar would not have been high luminous. (The “big ball” or compact source is very luminous because of a lot of objects in a very small volume and hence in this small volume a lot of dark matter objects clash, thus causing much dust/high metallicity.) In the case the redshift of the quasar basically is caused by gravitational redshift then the quasar is very compact and probably has much dark matter relative to hydrogen. End July 2003]
[November 6 2007: Big bang astronomers have found that the gas in the center of the compact sources of quasars consists of almost pure hydrogen and helium, whereas the stars and other material in the surrounding giant galaxies are heavily contaminated by other elements such as carbon and oxygen. The astronomers think that the gas spirals towards a black hole469.
The old dark objects in the old formerly compact source may have bound heavier elements than helium by gravity over a very long time, which may explain why so little heavier elements than helium are found in compact sources of quasars. When gas falls into the compact source containing much elements heavier than helium then those metals may sink down in the stars to the heavy nucleus of the former dark matter object (7-1). The astronomers may have observed outward layers of gas of star surfaces in the compact sources of quasars instead of gas spiraling towards a black hole. End November 6 2007]
As discussed in 4-3: universal engines may attract hydrogen, thus originating galaxies. This then, of course, will be the same for AGNs if the center of an AGN is a universal engine (which attracts certain amounts of hydrogen from outer space). A universal engine forming the compact source of an AGN and attracting hydrogen at the same time thus may explain why AGNs are found in host galaxies.
In general brighter AGNs are found in more luminous galaxies43. With AGNs being universal engines that attract hydrogen, thus originating a host galaxy, this is not surprising.
When will an old g-galaxy or young universal engine start with AGN activity?
Perhaps a g-galaxy is a very stable system that can be around for a very long time and which may be very hard to observe if it is old cold dark matter.
But when hydrogen (and perhaps also dust and dark matter objects) is attracted from very large distances and the attracted matter finally concentrates in and around the g-galaxy and falls (in)to the (old) g-galaxy nucleus then the g-galaxy (especially the nucleus) may shrink, thus turning itself into a (young) universal engine. This way a very concentrated (inner)sphere of the old dark matter g-galaxy may become a rotating ball of matter producing AGN features. (Right now the origin of the gas that fuels the central engine of an AGN and the mechanism that brings the gas to the very central region are still controversial.)
But, perhaps a g-galaxy don't need any infalling matter to turn itself into a universal engine with AGN features, or perhaps a universal engine only needs a certain minimum amount of attracted matter falling in, after which it produces AGN activity. Thus it may be that AGNs can be embedded in host galaxies that are very small and that quasars may have no host galaxy at all, which may have been observed29: “naked” quasars.
But also (what is often suggested): the bigger an AGN (i.e. more luminous) the more “the big ball”/starburst region outshines the host galaxy of the AGN, and thus the more the AGN appears to be “naked”.
[June 2004: Right now I give it most chance that there are no “naked” quasars. Quasars that appear to have no host galaxy are just much further away than expected so far by big bang astronomers (4-4). End June 2004]
(Seyferts, radio galaxies and quasars may represent different phases of AGNs. The different phases may be the reason why certain types of host galaxies link with certain types of AGNs. See 5-3.)
The fields of QSOs contain a surprisingly large number of faint galaxies close to the same redshift as the QSO43. And: the probability of finding a galaxy at any distance r from a chosen galaxy is higher if the reference galaxy contains an AGN43.
This is not surprising at all if QSOs are universal engines at the centers of g-galaxies with large numbers of old (faint) galaxies orbiting those centers (g-galaxies descend from galaxy clusters, 4-1).
If a universal engine in the center of an old g-galaxy is attracting hydrogen (thus finally lightning up as an AGN) then other old (small) galaxies in de g-galaxy that orbit the center of the g-galaxy will lighten up by the hydrogen as well.
It is found that ~ 15% of Seyfert galaxies have companions, whereas only ~ 3% of a control sample of normal galaxies have such companions43.
AGNs are older objects than galaxies and thus it may not be surprising that AGNs are more likely (i.e. 5 times more) than normal galaxies to have a similar companion object (in 4-3 it is explained that: the older the objects the stronger the tendency that they are found in binary systems).
Companions of Seyfert galaxies are also likely, relative to companions of normal galaxies, to show strong emission lines in their spectra43. This may be easily explained if Seyferts are likely to originate from shrunk galaxies or shrunk clusters of galaxies, which then will be in similar stages of their evolution if you take the galaxy formation explained in 4-1 in mind, see 5-4.
In 4-1 it is discussed that galaxies in clusters may show certain redshift periodicities. In the same chapter it was also mentioned that clusters may shrink, darken, attract hydrogen and become luminous again, but then as a galaxy or smaller cluster with less galaxies. Or a supercluster may shrink, darken, attract hydrogen and become luminous again, but then as a cluster (4-1).
If so than clusters combining as a group, thus forming a supercluster, will show periodicities too, and the same goes for super-clusters, super-super-superclusters too (if they exist).
Clusters may cluster like galaxies cluster. When galaxies or clusters are progenitors of universal engines that originate AGNs then the redshifts of AGNs may show periodicities too. And then AGNs cluster like galaxies cluster. Seyferts often show up as binaries and quasars are suspected to cluster too29, which may be explained by galaxies clustering, clusters, and AGNs descending from galaxies and/or clusters of galaxies.
Some AGNs have multiple nuclei43, which may be the same as the multiple nuclei in galaxies (4-3): a very old g-galaxy (4-1) in which galaxies or smaller g-galaxies have shrunken to a number of small universal engines (4-1), thus accounting for the multiple nuclei.
When galaxies or g-galaxies can shrink into a rotating “ball” of objects (5-1) then this ball may have certain features that may explain the Broad-Line Region in AGNs.
With a very compact rotating “ball” of (old) dark matter objects (heated by gravitational contraction or nuclear fusion) one gets an AGN compact source with very high surface brightness. This extremely high surface brightness may cause so much radiation pressure (by continuum emission from the “big ball” or: “compact” source or continuum source) that infalling atoms/ions get pushed away from the AGN big ball/compact source. Thus, after moving with a certain speed to the compact source, the atoms/ions start moving with a certain speed away from the compact source.
But at a certain moment the radiation pressure diminishes and so the speed of the atoms/ions will be diminished by the enormous pull of gravity coming from the AGN compact source. Thus the atoms/ions may start to fall back to the AGN core until they are stopped by radiation pressure again that blows them away from the compact source again, etc. This may be the way the Broad-Line Regions (BLRs) of AGNs are formed. (Of course, individual atoms/ions can assemble in (BLR) clouds/streams.)
In our Sun's chromosphere exactly the same mechanism is at work (where the Sun's corona, with its forbidden lines, shows more Narrow-Line Region characteristics).
And: several authors46 have pointed out that the photoionized extended envelopes of stars such as red giants and supergiants have physical characteristics remarkably similar to those of the BLR. This may be everything but a coincidence. Especially when one takes in mind that red giants and supergiants may be, as suggested in 6-2, very big heavy element cores surrounded with (large) gas mantles. The here proposed AGN model is the same: a “big ball” (with many heavy element cores) surrounded by a gas mantle, i.e. BLR. (Perhaps it remains to be seen how much or whether there is gas inside the “big ball”, i.e. whether or not the BLR is only the outward part of a large gas sphere as the chromosphere is in our Sun or as in red giants or supergiants.)
[March 28 2005: One may argue that if the BLR is a gas mantle surrounding the compact source of AGNs then we would not see the compact source, instead we would see the gas mantle, like we see the Sun's chromosphere and not what is underneath the Sun's chromosphere. However, when one thinks of the gravitational forces and radiation pressure of our Sun and the gravitational forces and radiation pressure of red giants one understands that in the case of red giants the “gas mantle” is not as massive as the Sun's chromosphere. The gas of the BLR may be much more dilute/less massive than the “gas mantle” of a red giant because of much stronger gravitational forces combined with much stronger radiation pressure by the compact source of the AGN. Therefore at least part of the radiation coming from the compact source may find its way through the BLR. End March 28 2005]
[June 2004: One out of million stars in our Galaxy is a supergiant like Betelgeuse, which even at a distance of 425 light-years is the seventh brightest star visible in the northern hemisphere. The photospheric surface of Betelgeuse is about as large as Jupiter's orbit. So far telescopes on Earth detected the warm gas in Betelgeuse's weak chromosphere up to only about five times the radius of the photosphere.
New observations with the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph, Hubble's high-precision and ultra-sensitive spectrometer, show that the warm chromosphere of Betelgeuse extends out to more than fifty times its radius in visible light (i.e. the radius of its photosphere; the weak chromosphere of the Sun extends only a few percent of the radius of the photosphere). The chromosphere of Betelgeuse is very turbulent. New observations show that the bubbling action of the chromosphere tosses gas out one side of the star, while it falls inward at the other side. Parts of the star's unstable surface sometimes vigorously bulge out in different directions, piercing long warm plumes into the cold dust envelope. At large distances from the surface, the density of the cold atmosphere strongly decreases151.
This description of the chromosphere of Betelgeuse comes close to the description of the BLRs in AGNs, which too have gas in a very turbulent state, which originates emission lines with extreme widths in BLRs. A chromosphere extending more than fifty times the distance between the Sun and Jupiter means that photons going from the photosphere towards the outer parts of Betelgeuse's chromosphere need more than a day travel time. A chromosphere that big comes close to the magnitudes of BLRs in (small) AGNs.
One then wonders if there can be very big stars and very small AGNs that resemble each other, i.e. very big stars may have multiple dark matter objects (surrounded by gas) inside that revolve around each other (the whole radius of visible light, i.e. the photosphere, surrounded by the chromosphere) where as small AGNs may have multiple dark matter objects (which may be surrounded by gas) inside that revolve around each other (the whole compact source surrounded by the BLR).
Perhaps that a supergiant star can be a star with (many) multiple objects (small stars) inside that have gas fusion going on in their layers. A supergiant star thus may originate from a concentration of many dark matter objects that have been fuelled by gas.
The dust envelope surrounding Betelgeuse too is something that bears similarity to AGNs, which also have a disk of dust (5-1).
When a supergiant can be an object that consists of multiple stars then one may expect that some very large stars show variability because the multiple objects within the stars orbit each other, thus bringing different magnitudes of luminosity.
One longstanding problem with gauging the brightness of stars at great distances is that what seems at first to be one amazingly bright star turns out on closer examination to be a cluster of nearby stars. LBV 1806-20 is a star that could be as much as 40 million times the sun's brightness, big bang astronomers think that it may be the most massive and most luminous star ever discovered (i.e. in January 2004). Astronomers have known about LBV 1806-20 since the 1990s. At that time, it was identified as a “luminous blue variable star”, a relatively rare massive star. Such stars get their names from their propensity to display light and color variability in the infrared spectrum. Luminous blue variable stars are extremely large, with LBV 1806-20 probably at least 150 times larger than the sun. More study will be needed to determine the distance and singularity of LBV 1806-20 in order to establish whether the object is truly the most massive star known or that it is a collection of stars in a tight orbit around each other152. End June 2004]
[March 25 2005: A team of big bang astronomers has checked out the X-ray sources of many far away objects, i.e. the centers of far away galaxies. The team has observed that the chemical abundance of iron in the centers/AGNs of very far away galaxies is about three times higher than in our Solar system. This came as a surprise for them, for they had not expected to find so much iron in their early big bang universe. The width of the iron line indicated that the iron atoms must have high speeds299.
The far away galaxies were probably further away than the astronomers thought (5-3). Being spotted at a very big distance the AGNs in the centers of the galaxies ought to be strong/big/massive AGNs. In strong/big/massive AGNs a lot of iron can be expected. The Broad Line Region of strong/big/massive AGNs will show strong widths. End March 25 2005]
[May 2004: The center of the active Circinus spiral galaxy spews out gas and dust in a broad spray like clouds of vapor from a steam locomotive89. While other active galaxies drive narrow relativistic jets, the Circinus center drives a comparatively meek wind. It is not understood by big bang astronomers what mechanism causes the meek wind89. Perhaps that radiation pressure by continuum emission from a “big ball” can explain the wind. End May 2004]
Cross-correlation lags of helium are shorter than the cross-correlation lags of hydrogen. In general: the cross-correlation lags of heavier elements are shorter than those of lighter elements43. This may be because heavier elements will be stopped later by radiation pressure from the AGN central source than lighter elements.
Also: HeII has a shorter cross-correlation lag than HeI43, which may be because HeII, having an electron less, is more compact than HeI (and thus HeII will be stopped later by radiation pressure).
One may expect this “compactness thing” to be kind of the same for gravity particles (causing gravitational forces) relative to photons (causing radiation pressure), but this may not be the case at all. Gravity particles are likely to be much smaller and to be around in far greater numbers than photons. Thus the “compactness thing”, i.e. the density, of an atom will have much stronger influence on the “hit chance” by photons than the “hit chance” by gravity particles (3-2). Thus more compact, denser atoms (i.e. HeII relative to HeI) may come closer to the central source before stopped by radiation pressure than less dense atoms.
Equivalent widths of the CIV emission line tends to decrease systematically with increasing continuum luminosity: the Baldwin effect. The origin of the Baldwin effect is not understood43.
If the luminosity of a certain compact source increases then the BLR is pushed further away from the compact source. The BLR shell becomes thinner and the velocities of the CIV decrease, thus the widths of the CIV emission line decrease.
In a single spectrum different emission lines may have different widths. It is often found, for example, that the helium lines HeIIλ4686 and HeIλ5876 are broader than the hydrogen Balmer lines in BLRs43. This too may be due to helium coming closer to the AGN core and thus helium deals with more fierceful (radiation pressure/gravitational) forces and hence gets higher velocities, i.e. broader emission lines.
Also: the higher-ionization lines (e.g., HeIIλ4686) are shifted blueward relative to the lower-ionization lines (e.g., HeIλ5876)43. This may be due to HeI being stripped of an electron near the compact source, then moving away (by radiation pressure) from the compact source as HeII (which then is blueshifted relative to HeI). The HeII is stopped by gravitational attraction and changes to a HeI by gaining an electron and goes back to the central source (hence HeI being redshifted relative to HeII). (Closer to the central source the helium gets hit more by photons and thus closer to the central source helium is more likely to become HeII.)
Changes in emission-line profiles are not reverberation effects, and they are not correlated with the continuum variability in any obvious way43. Line-profile changes may be due to atoms, or perhaps rather clouds of atoms (with different concentrations), moving to the compact source and/or away from the compact source while the compact source and BLR are rotating (with different ways of rotation, so no correlation with the continuum variability). Rotation that may bring different atoms (clouds of atoms) in the line-of-sight and hence emission-line profiles change.
Above I described in A big ball that the massive objects in the compact source may glow by gravitational contraction. But perhaps that those objects produce their hot radiation (too) by nuclear fusion processes. In 6-2 it is described that white dwarfs may be massive dark matter objects with relatively little gas that is fused into higher elements as in stars. But because the gas layer then is relatively small the stars/white dwarfs may be much hotter than normal stars. Thus perhaps that the compact sources of AGNs are big balls with many (big) white dwarfs, or: stars with big cores of heavy elements, that fuse gas into higher elements.
Remains the problem: How are the compact sources of AGNs fed with gas if a BLR pushes the gas away?
Part of the gas of the BLR may fall into the compact source. For instance: gas may be channeled from the BLR to the compact source the moment a more outward object or compact group of objects (which are colder, thus producing less radiation pressure) in the compact source blocks radiation coming from the more inner parts of the compact source. Then gas may have its chance to fall into the compact source. Thus the compact source may be fed with gas.
I like this fed-by-gas compact source model most. Also because there is not much difference between the continuums of Seyfert 2s (that have no BLR, so gas falls into the compact source) and Seyfert 1s. Though, nuclear fusion and “glowing” by gravitational contraction may be at work together.
The UV-excess method to detect QSOs also selects white dwarfs. This may not be a coincidence. A white dwarf may be a single hot relatively big heavy metal nucleus object (which may have a gas layer) (6-2) close to us. A QSO may be a big ball of many hot relatively big heavy metal nuclei objects (which may have gas layers) far from us.
Differences between Type 1 and Type 2 AGNs, like Seyfert 1s versus Seyfert 2s, may be caused by: Seyfert 1s have stronger universal engines that are capable of producing sufficient radiation pressure in order to make a BLR.
Quasars may be in a certain evolutionary (more shrunk universal engine) phase and hence QSOs may have such compact concentrated “big balls” that there is always a BLR, which then may explain the absence of Type 2 QSOs.
[June 2004: A few years ago astronomers reported to have found the first very distant representative of a Type II QSO at a distance of z=3.7180 and recently more Type II QSOs were reported to be found at large distances (z > 3)181.
Every now and then there may be a QSO that has a compact source strong enough (i.e. enough hard X-ray radiation) to bring the AGN in the QSO class (instead of the Seyfert class) while at the same time the compact source of the QSO is not dense/compact enough (yet) to bring radiation pressure (dense enough) to originate a BLR. Such very far away Type II QSOs may then be found when very large concentrations of matter (i.e. for instance in the centers of superclusters) have such characteristics, i.e. a strong radiating compact source not strong enough yet to produce a BLR. (Such sources may not be found relatively nearby when the nearby environment of our Galaxy is in a certain “chappell state”, 5-4.) So a QSO may be fuelled by gas, enough to be a Type II QSO, but not enough (yet) to have a BLR established itself.
Another, perhaps much better, explanation may be: such sources are no Type II QSOs, but clusters of Seyfert 2s that are mistaken for one (Type II) QSO. At a redshift of over z=3 I think that big bang astronomers mistake clusters of galaxies for galaxies because the distance to objects at z=3 are much higher with tired light redshift (of an infinite universe) than with expansion redshift (of a big bang universe, 4-4). Therefore it may be no surprise that big bang astronomers claim to have found Type II QSOs at distances over z=3, for what they really may have been observing could be multiple Seyfert 2s.
This may mean that also Type I QSOs very far away (often) rather may be clusters of Type I QSOs than single Type I QSOs. Very far away QSOs being clusters of QSOs (within clusters of galaxies, with QSOs outshining their host galaxies) rather than single QSOs would solve two complications concerning far away QSOs. One is that very far way QSOs would be extremely big when being at very large distances, perhaps to big to be true.
The space density of very high-redshift (z larger than 3.5) QSOs is thought to be extremely low (5-3), which may be explained by clusters of QSOs instead of single QSOs.
The other problem that may be solved is that radio-loud AGNs constitute a small minority of the AGN population, except at the very high-luminosity end of the distribution, where as many as 50% or so of AGNs are radio-loud quasars43. When the high-luminosity end of the distribution often concerns high redshift quasars then clusters of QSOs instead of single QSOs may explain part of the difference, 5-3.
Approximately 50% of the host galaxies of QSOs show morphological peculiarities (5-3), which may (partly) be explained by clusters of galaxies instead of galaxies at high redshifts.
When Seyferts have compact source regions that are less hot then those colder regions produce less radiation and hence cause less radiation pressure that causes broad emission lines. Thus a rotating compact source, i.e. “big ball” may explain Seyfert 1.5s turning into Seyfert 2s and back again within years.
Thus the above described rotation of the big ball (5-1) that may cause long-term variability in the central source may cause transformations of Seyfert 1.5s and 2s too.
This view may be supported by observations of a few highly variable Seyfert 1 galaxies which have become very faint, with the broad components of the emission lines practically disappeared43.
Additional support may be found in the fact that Seyfert 2 galaxies have significantly lower hard X-ray luminosities than Seyfert 1 galaxies43, thus Seyfert 2s probably have less strong continuum/radiation pressure.
And: high-ionization narrow lines tend to be found only in Seyfert 1 spectra43, which also indicates that the continuum/radiation pressure of Seyfert 1s are stronger.
(As mentioned (5-1): continuum variability may show no periodicity because different regions in “the big ball” may have peculiar velocities. Thus variability between Seyfert 1.5s and Seyfert 2s may show no periodicity either.)
Seyfert 2s may evolve into Seyfert 1s (for good, I'm not mentioning Seyfert 1/2 variability here) by shrinking of the compact source, which then produces stronger radiation pressure/gets a higher surface brightness, until a BLR originates.
(Seyfert 1s may evolve into radio quiet QSOs or radio loud galaxies, 5-3.)
[February 2004: Perhaps Seyfert 2s too evolve into Seyfert 1s when more gas has flowed into the compact source and thus more gas is fused, causing stronger radiation pressure (5-1). End February 2004]
Bigger Seyfert 2s (more luminous than Seyfert 1s) have more continuum. This continuum then ought to come from a “big ball” that is more luminous (with more luminous objects in a larger compact source), but which still has a surface brightness/radiation pressure that is too low to create a Broad Line Region.
The narrow-line to broad-line luminosity ratio is a decreasing function of radio luminosity: the narrow lines are relatively weaker in more luminous radio sources43.
This may be explained by: more luminous radio sources may have stronger continuum/radiation pressure which may account for relatively stronger concentrated gas in BLRs (leaving less radiation for NLRs).
Seyfert 2 galaxies are less (or not at all) polarized compared to Seyfert 1 galaxies, the continua of Seyfert 2 galaxies are in general not polarized43.
A polarized spectrum can result from scattering or reflection of the AGN continuum, either by dust or by free electrons43.
Seyfert 1s may have attracted more (outboard) dust, or produced more (inboard) dust (by clashing dark matter objects and/or supernovae), which may cause polarization (5-3). [July 2004: This can be seen as support for Seyfert 2s shrinking into Seyfert 1s, thus having more dark matter objects in a smaller volume of space, resulting in more clashes between dark matter objects producing dust. Shrinking also means more concentration of dust. Also, when Seyfert 2s are progenitors of Seyfert 1s, then there has been more time for dark matter objects to clash as well as more time for supernovae to produce dust. End July 2004]
Polarization by electrons may be most likely. The polarization of the featureless continuum of the Seyfert 2 galaxy NGC 1068 (which is an exception to the Seyfert-2-no-polarization rule) is wavelength independent as far into the UV as 1500 angstrom, which indicates that the scattering particles are electrons rather than dust43. And: the observed polarization in the continuum of AGNs increases dramatically towards shorter wavelengths43.
With the here described BLR mechanism ions are pushed away by radiation pressure, but the electrons of the ions may fall into the compact source of the AGN causing more polarization closer to the center. Thus one may expect polarization to increase towards shorter wavelengths. Seyfert 1s have BLRs and thus electrons may fall inward, causing polarization (5-3).
Seyfert 2 galaxies sometimes show an extended component of continuum emission whose origin is unknown43.
A shrunk g-galaxy or universal engine can have all kind of assemblages of dark matter objects and thus can have all kind of extended parts (i.e. old shrunk galaxies that only later fuse with the center of the compact sources), which thus may easily explain the extended component of continuum emission of some Seyfert 2 galaxies.
Also: if Seyfert 2s are relatively young AGNs then it is logic that some Seyfert 2s do not have a spherical “big ball” (/disk) yet (the AGN compact source is “under construction”).
There is X-ray (“continuum”) emission coming from the center of our Galaxy. The X-ray emission map shows very many discrete sources (which then may be gravitationally glowing “dark” matter objects or, rather, “dark” matter objects/white dwarfs fed by infalling gas). The overall picture is that of an oval heap of X-ray sources, with the major axis in the galactic equator, and with several extended parts8.
If both the galactic center and Seyferts are universal engines than the explanation of the extended X-ray/continuum sources of both may be found in the same direction: old more outward laying shrunk galaxies (of the old g-galaxy) that only later become “one” with the central source.
The clouds of the Narrow-Line Regions (NLRs) of AGNs may be caused by infalling gas from intergalactic space (outboard gas, 4-4) as well as by BLR clouds that are ejected by radiation pressure of the AGN compact source. If the continuum emission of AGNs can change then every now and then there may be an extremely strong radiating area in the compact source blowing a BLR cloud outside the (BLR-)region. Thus BLR clouds may become NLR clouds. NLR clouds may become BLR clouds when gravity (by the compact source) “pulls in” NLR clouds.
In the NLR region a similar process may exist as in the BLR: clouds may get pushed outwards (a little) by radiation pressure and pushed inwards (a little) by gravity. “A little” and hence narrow lines instead of broad lines.
Other factors may play a role. Like stars. Stars because unlike the BLR where the line widths appear to reflect the potential of the central source, the NLR widths reflect the gravitational field of the stars43. (Though, observations indicate that the NLR gas is photoionized by the AGN spectrum, and not by stars in the nuclear regions43.)
Perhaps that in the NLR atoms are more in the form of clouds where in the BLR they are more individual atoms/ions, or perhaps rather: streams of atoms/ions. The permitted lines in a Seyfert 2 have about the same widths as the forbidden lines8. This may mean that the NLR gas concentration is different in different parts of the NLR region that have the same radial distance to the central source; this may favor the suggestion that NLR atoms are more in the form of clouds.
There have been measurements that show continuity between the NLR and the BLR. In both BLR and NLR there is stratification of some sort, with either density or ionization level (or both) increasing towards the center43. If the density and velocity dispersion increase as one gets closer to the nucleus, the NLR may merge more or less naturally with the BLR43.
Then it is just that somewhere dust ought to start being around (because the region becomes less cold, so no sublimation of dust anymore) and somewhere dilution allows forbidden lines to appear.
With the above BLR model the merging of BLR and NLR may make sense, because some individual atoms/ions in the BLR will get faster velocities (by being hit, by chance, by more photons) and thus those ions are likely to go to the NLR, and: there may be no reason why there wouldn't be atoms/ions falling into the BLR.
Red giants can collapse, and thus they can produce bipolar outflows and originate white dwarfs.
[February 2004: According to conventional astronomy. The formation of red giants may be a bit different, though. Perhaps red giants are stars (like white dwarfs may be) that have assembled hydrogen, but in a way as in AGNs that get a BLR: hydrogen is attracted to the star/white dwarf, but is kept at a certain distance by radiation pressure (7-1). Perhaps that at a certain moment the (central) star/white dwarf becomes depleted and then the surrounding gas collapses into the central star, which then originates bipolar outflows as with Young Stellar Objects (YSOs), see hereafter. End February 2004]
Also in star formation processes bipolar outflows are observed: YSOs, which may be originated by dark matter objects (7-1).
If a dark matter object rotates fiercely and infalling gas contracts on it, then the object may release or rather squeeze gas outward perpendicular to the rotation disk bipolar along the rotation axis of the disk, accretion energy thus converting into that of (bipolar) outflows.
[June 2004: According to big bang theory and observations material from a protostellar cloud cannot fall directly into an infant star, it first lands in an accretion disk and only moves inward to fall onto the star after it has shed its angular momentum. That process of angular momentum transfer, along with the evolution of magnetic fields, leads to the launching of the bipolar outflows of YSOs according to big bang astronomers. These outflows eventually clear away the envelope, leaving a newborn star surrounded by an accretion disk137. Perhaps that accretion disks around the center of “Young Seyfert Objects” bring ionization cones of Seyfert 2s, see hereafter. End June 2004]
Matter may get squeezed out when fast infalling matter does not have the time to form a heavy compact “ball” around the inner spherical object (like white dwarfs in red giants and dark matter objects in YSOs), i.e. to form a solid compact sphere. This situation may exist in AGNs too, i.e. in Seyferts 2s, which then may account for bipolar outflows of Seyferts 2s like in Seyfert 1s.
Seyfert 2s don't have a Broad Line Region, so gas that falls into the very core isn't pushed outwards. Thus, in the case of Seyfert 2s big amounts of gas may fall on the central AGN core of a Seyfert 2 and the same process may start as in collapsing red giants or in YSOs: gas is squeezed out (bipolar) along the rotation axis. Thus ionization cones may be produced.
Ionization cones have been detected in somewhat more than a dozen AGNs, primarily Seyfert 2s43.
Gas falling into a Seyfert 2 core may light up on dark matter objects and thus finally cause stronger radiation pressure coming from the AGN core, thus creating a BLR and thus changing a Seyfert 2 into a Seyfert 1.
Also: more gas in the core will cause stronger inertial forces and so the compact source will shrink faster and dark matter objects will merge faster into more massive objects that will have higher temperatures, thus (too) raising the surface brightness of the compact source as well as the radiation pressure.
Thus Seyfert 2s may be progenitors of Seyferts 1s (LINERs may be progenitors of Seyfert 2s, 5-3).
Part of the gas falling into the compact source (or perhaps rather: the center that may be on its way to become a compact source) of a Seyfert 2 may not flow out of the compact source (into the ionization cones) and stay in the compact source. Thus the objects of compact sources in Seyferts (and AGNs in general; though BL Lacertae objects may be an exception, 5-3) may be surrounded with layers of gas (5-1).
Seyfert 1s may become radio quiet QSOs (5-3). Perhaps the outflowing gas, i.e. the ionization cones, of Seyfert 2s (on their way to become Seyfert 1s) later can become broad absorption line (BAL) systems (5-3).
The well-known quasar 3C 273 shows a huge blob of material that is moving away from the quasar. Perhaps this can be explained by the shrinking of g-galaxies or, perhaps rather: galaxies/smaller g-galaxies within (larger) g-galaxies.
The density of objects becomes important with pushing gravity (3-2): a shrunk g-galaxy or galaxy (or universal engine) may “fly out” of a (bigger) g-galaxy (i.e. away from the “main” universal engine 3C 273), because the shrunk heap of matter has become more dense and thus the main part of the quasar kind of lost gravitational “grip” on the shrunk heap of matter. Thus the blob of material moving away from 3C 273 may be a galaxy/g-galaxy/universal engine that has escaped from 3C 273 by shrinking/becoming more dense.
It may be very likely that a lot of new material (stars, gas, dust, dark matter objects) has fallen into the nucleus of our Galaxy, i.e. the old g-galaxy. Thus the shrunk g-galaxy in the nucleus has become more compact: by shrinking and by additional matter falling into the nucleus of our Galaxy. Thus it may be that older galaxies like spirals and irregulars Is have nuclei that are hold together stronger than nuclei in younger galaxies like ellipticals (which are host galaxies of quasars).
Also: in younger galaxies there may be more “pull” by outward laying material where in older galaxies there may be more “pull” by inward laying material (that has fallen into the nucleus).
Thus one may expect blobs of material escaping from ellipticals/younger galaxies rather than from spirals/older galaxies.
Also the radio galaxy M87 shows knots of material leaving the galaxy. An explanation may be that the knots of material have left M87 because of radio loud activity, i.e. streams of radio loud material flowing from the nucleus may have taken knots of material with them on the way out.
And: radio loud activity reduces the mass in the compact source of an AGN (5-2) and thus gravitational grip by the compact source becomes lower.
[February 2004: After a period of radio loud activity a quasar/QSO or radio galaxy may have lost a lot of mass in its very center and thus blobs of material that were orbiting the center won't be attracted so strong anymore by the center and therefore may leave the AGN. End February 2004]
If the central region of an AGN is a universal engine/compact source surrounded by a starburst region then it is quite likely that there are old remnants of the old g-galaxy (4-1) swirling around this central region. Of course the compact source consists of dark matter (fuelled with new gas) of the old g-galaxy too, as well as the starburst region consists of old dark matter objects (fuelled with new gas).
When old dark matter orbits the central region of the AGN then it is, of course, likely that the (planes of the) orbits are mostly found perpendicular to the rotation axis of the central region/compact source. And: a lot of dark matter objects will have a lot of dust too (by clashing of dark matter objects). Also outboard dust (4-4) and outboard matter from intergalactic space may accumulate around the central region of an AGN. And: (outboard) gas then will be attracted to the dark matter/dust. Thus a dark matter/dust/gas torus of an AGN175 may be explained.
Perhaps that the torus can be originated from old outward orbiting material of the old g-galaxy (that originated the AGN) only (or as good as only). Such outward orbiting material, i.e. old galaxies or old (smaller/minor) g-galaxies, once far away from the (old) center of the (major) g-galaxy (which has become the central region, i.e. compact source and starburst region, of the AGN), may have assembled themselves in a disk, which then may consist of many (relatively small) dark matter objects that may have crashed a lot and thus may have caused a lot of dust. One may call such torus material inboard material.
[June 2004: Not only AGNs have gas/dust tori. Also galaxies have gas/dust tori, or rather: gas/dust disks (on the inside, 4-3, as well as on the outside, 4-4), which I also explain with dark matter objects within old galaxies/g-galaxies clashing. Also stars have gas/dust tori in a way: accretion disks, which I also explain with dark matter objects/debris that may have come to fly around the stars, 7-2.
The galactic center is embedded in dust8, which then can be explained for the same reasons, i.e. 4-3 or when it turns out that Sagittarius A* is an old AGN (both reasons are almost the same since (big) old shrunken galaxies as well as AGNs become/are the centers of galaxies attracting new matter from intergalactic space). Also the gas/dust disk surrounding the galactic centers of other galaxies (the centers are often referred to as black holes by big bang astronomers), for instance the disk of dust and gas surrounding the center of the Circinus galaxy89, can be explained by the same principle of old galaxies/g-galaxies orbiting the centers, thus producing dust by clashing dark matter objects.
I like this, i.e. to have all this gas/dust stuff of different celestial objects explained by the same principle. End June 2004]
Probably most, if not (about) all, gas is outboard gas, where dust may be outboard as well as inboard, and most, if not (about) all, dark matter (objects) may be inboard.
(Inside (in the center of) this torus another disk has formed itself from much more concentrated dark matter objects and concentrated gas: the starburst region. Inside (in the center of) this starburst region lies the central compact source, which consists of even much more concentrated matter.)
In chapter 3-2 and 4-3 it is explained (with pushing gravity) that one may have to differentiate for different materials, different outboard matter (gas, dust and dark matter objects), coming from intergalactic space. Gas may fall “easier” straight to an object in space than dust, while dust may fall “easier” to an object than dark matter objects: dark matter objects will stick more strongly to the direction of their incoming speed, i.e. dark matter objects start orbiting a rotating (rotation that will influence the direction of the dark matter objects) central region with a universal engine/compact source inside (thus the dark matter objects form a disk, like planets in solar systems, 7-1) where dust falls stronger into the central region and gas clouds probably fall even more stronger into the central region. But by doing so dust and gas may “stick” to the dark matter objects that orbit the central region.
The torus and the starburst disk of an AGN may form some kind of gravitational shield (3-2) to the central source. Thus the BLR clouds may be pushed by radiation pressure into the starburst region (more easily than the BLR clouds are pushed into the NLR (not shielded by torus/starburst disk). Thus perhaps that gas/atoms/clouds from the NLR can go to the BLR and then, finally, get pushed into the starburst region (perhaps it remains to be seen whether or not there is also a BLR between the compact source and the disk (i.e. in the plane of the disk)).
Narrow-line X-ray galaxies (NLXGs) are Seyferts whose optical spectra are heavily reddened and extinguished by dust within the galaxy. NLXGs may be (older) Seyferts that have attracted more outboard dust, or they may have, for some reason, more (inboard or outboard) dark matter objects that have clashed a lot (for example because galaxies or g-galaxies started orbiting the central region with opposite orbiting directions, thus clashing a lot and hence forming much dust, 7-2).
The dust in/around ultraluminous far-infrared (FIR) galaxies may be the result of frequently clashing dark matter objects because of opposite orbiting velocities of galaxies or (minor) g-galaxies. The dust may also be outboard dust. Radio loudness perhaps may be produced by cold dust (though not likely, 5-2) that is poured out by an AGN. This dust may originate FIR galaxies too.
(Of course, dust produced by supernovae will play some part too.)
Explaining supernova jets with dark matter that has become so hot that certain nuclear reactions start to happen may lead to the understanding of radio loud activity of AGNs. So that's why I discuss supernovae here (and X-ray bursters).
Gamma ray bursts (GRBs) seem to be connected with supernovae47.
So far the answer to what originates supernovae is: a massive star exploding, after which a black hole or neutron star remains. The GRB gamma rays are explained with relativistic shockwaves travelling at speeds nearly the speed of light. This may be very true indeed, but I like to suggest another mechanism here.
In the case of novae we seem to be dealing with a star that explodes “totally”, no jets appear to be formed, the star ejects mass in all directions.
The same may be the case with certain types of supernovae: no jets are formed, the exploding object goes off in all directions.
Recently (some) supernovae seem to have two jets escaping in opposite directions from the central object along the rotational axis of the central object47.
What happens when dark matter (like iron) gets compressed very heavily? Of course, I don't know, but: right now no one knows. For until now this couldn't happen. With Newtonian/relativistic gravity heavy objects become a black hole, which, as mentioned in 5-1, do not exist with pushing gravity. So right now hardly anything is known about what happens with very massive dark matter objects that contract very strongly by gravity.
This chapter contains some ideas that may explain astronomical objects/observations like: radio loud AGNs and supernovae (this chapter), pulsars (6-1) and white dwarfs (6-2).
If a star stops burning gasses and cools down it will, when cooled down enough (i.e. radiation pressure small enough) assemble gas until it starts burning gas again. Also white dwarfs (probably) will, after cooling down, assemble gas again and become luminous again (white dwarfs may mainly consist of heavy elements like iron instead of degenerate gas).
Thus white dwarfs finally may become very heavy dark matter objects. At a certain point the mass may become so huge that a certain critical value is reached: temperature and pressure inside the white dwarf (or star with heavy nucleus) may have become so high that a certain process (or processes) start. For instance: iron may “burn” into heavier elements; this will cool down the object and may originate pulsars (6-1).
The burning of heavy elements (higher than iron) into heavier elements may be something that already has started happening in our Sun (7-1), but it may also start much later, for instance in heavy white (variable) dwarfs or very heavy massive stars or pulsars.
Perhaps that at a certain moment (about) all heavy elements “have burnt away” to the highest possible element(s), which (probably) is uranium. Then gravitational contraction may not get cooled down anymore and thus pressure and temperature may reach a certain value where the uranium explodes like a atom bomb, which may cause a certain type of supernova.
Such a reaction produces a neutrino burst48. Neutrino bursts coming from a supernova8 are observed by Kamiokande and IMB49 for Supernova 1987A.
But also: such a reaction produces gamma rays. (The U.S.A. army found GRBs while looking for atom bomb tests. Perhaps they found exactly what they were looking for: (extragalactic) atom bombs, i.e. GRBs as described here with exploding uranium.)
Imagine a massive star that has stopped burning gas after which it collapses. It collapses until a certain process starts which ejects the outward mass layers of the star (so far I follow the supra-nova model explaining gamma ray bursts47).
As long as the outward mass layers of the star were close around the core of the star the core may have been gravitationally shielded (3-2) by the outward layers, while radiation pressure by gas/mass burning may have kept the outward layers of the star from collapsing.
The outward layers of the star are shed and the core is left behind and gets contracted by gravity. The core may have grown to a higher mass magnitude relative to the last time it was a cold dark matter object in space assembling new hydrogen. The last “star phase” will have added more heavy elements to the core. So now a heavier core suddenly (after the ejection of the outward mass layers) gets contracted by gravity (after the gravitational shielding by the outward layers has stopped). Perhaps that at a certain point such a core can contract so strong that a certain process is triggered that produces a jet of high-energy particles. According to the supranova model shockwaves within such a jet may produce the burst of X-ray and gamma rays that is observed to last only a few minutes. [June 2004: Both strong and weak gamma-ray bursts, along with X-ray flashes, which emit almost no gamma rays, seem to be different forms of the same cosmic process163. The on this webpage mentioned burst-mechanisms suggest dark matter objects of different magnitudes and different element-compositions producing bursts with different temperatures, which then may account for one type of mechanism producing bursts with different wave lengths. End June 2004]
[September 5 2005: Until the latest Swift gamma-ray burst discovery, scientists assumed a simple scenario of a single explosion followed by a graceful afterglow of the dying members. The new scenario of a blast followed by a series of powerful “hiccups” is particularly evident in a gamma-ray burst from May 2, 2005, named GRB 050502B. This burst lasted 17 seconds in the constellation Leo. About 500 seconds later, Swift detected a spike in X-ray light about 100 times brighter than anything seen before. Previously there had been hints of an “X-ray bump” between the burst and afterglow in previous gamma-ray bursts, coming a minute or so after the burst. Swift has seen more than one dozen clear cases of multiple explosions. Within big bang cosmology there are several theories to describe this newly discovered phenomenon and most point to the presence of a newborn black hole. “The newly formed black hole immediately gets to work,“ said Prof. Peter Meszaros of Penn State, head of the Swift theory team. “We aren't clear on the details yet, but it appears to be messy. Matter is falling into the black hole, which releases a great amount of energy. Other matter gets blasted away from the black hole and flies out into the interstellar medium.” Another theory within big bang cosmology is the jet of material shooting away from the dead star starts to fall back onto itself, creating shockwaves in the jet core that ram together blobs of gas and produce X-ray light351.
Perhaps that a dark matter object explodes, gives off a gamma-ray burst, falls back onto itself and then the same but smaller dark matter object produces X-ray bursts. In that case, as described above, the same type of mechanism may produce bursts with different wavelengths, i.e. gamma-ray and X-ray wavelengths. In the case of GRB 050502B the same object thus may produce bursts with different wavelengths in a very short time span with the same mechanism. End September 5 2005]
[June 13 2005: An international team of astronomers has found evidence that certain kinds of gamma-ray bursts, which are associated with Type 1C supernovae (also known as hypernovae or supranovae), could be caused when carbon/oxygen stars collapse. The most popular scenario is that a collapsing star generates two highly collimated beams or jets of particles and energy that flash outward from the poles. The particles and energy generate a shock wave when they hit gas and dust around the star, which in turn accelerates particles to energies at which they emit high-energy light: gamma rays and X-rays. The initial burst fades over a few seconds, but the resulting shock waves (the “afterglow”) can be visible to optical, radio and X-ray telescopes for days after the explosion.
Type Ic supernovae are expected to result from massive stars whose winds have shed their outer envelopes of hydrogen and often all their helium, or that have lost these outer layers to a binary companion. Only the core is left, composed of the elements produced by fusion in the star's center - mostly carbon and oxygen but other heavy elements as well, down to a solid iron center according to big bang astronomers. Their collapsar theory proposes that the solid iron sphere at the very core of the star collapses under gravity. As the iron and surrounding matter fall inward, the spin of the core increases, flattening the in-falling material into a disk that flows inward along the equator. The congestion of in-falling matter pushes some of it right back out along the path of least resistance - the two blowholes at either pole.
The spectra of some supernovae a year or so after its explosion should show emission lines of elements, such as oxygen, that are split, one shifted slightly to lower wavelengths and the other shifted to higher wavelengths. The two lines would come from opposite sides of the expanding disk around the equatorial region of the central remnant of the old exploded star, one Doppler shifted toward the red because it is moving away from us, the other blueshifted because it is moving toward us.
Researchers analyzed the spectra of supernova SN 2003jd, revealing that they exhibit split oxygen and magnesium emission lines exactly as would be expected if the collapsar model of gamma-ray production were correct. This was the first Type Ic supernova to show split oxygen lines337. End June 13 2005]
Perhaps another possible mechanism for a gamma ray burst can be: a total explosion (or jet) emits very high-temperature particles that cool down very quickly, thus causing gamma ray bursts (plus afterglow).
[May 16 2005: Hot particles cooling down quickly may also produce infrared and optical light. New data have shown that whatever is producing the gamma rays in gamma-ray bursts is also capable of producing optical and infrared light333. End May 16 2005]
[February 2004: When a star “burns” then photons by nucleosynthese also push matter to the very core of the star next to pushing the outward layers away from the core, so one may doubt the here suggested mechanism. Still, there may be a difference between pushing by gravity particles and pushing by photons, as mentioned in 5-1. And: gravity that pushes gas towards the core, thus bringing nucleosynthese, is directed to the core (see also 3-2) while photons produced by nucleosynthese are directed to all directions. Thus the core may be more compressed (by gravity) when it becomes “naked”. End February 2004]
Thus some massive stars may shed their (outward) mass layers two months prior to an explosion of the remaining core of the star and thus a gamma ray burst may follow two months after the star has ejected the outward mass layers (which is what is observed but not understood so far: a jet of high energy particles seems to interact with a supernova shell that was ejected two months earlier47).
Gamma ray bursts may come in two different ways: A. by jets that search their way out of the compact core via the poles, or: B. the core explodes “totally”.
Perhaps both ways are possible, depending on the rotation rate of the core. Stronger rotation may cause jets where lack of rotation may cause the object to be so spherical that it explodes “totally” (5-2, but also: jets may only be produced if the core is massive enough, perhaps as with radio loud activity of AGNs, 5-2).
[August 2004: Astronomers have identified a new class of cosmic explosions that are more powerful than supernovae but considerably weaker than most gamma-ray bursts. The discovery strongly suggests a continuum between the two previously-known classes of explosions247. Perhaps this hints towards a “total” explosion, i.e. when supernovae explode “totally”251. End August 2004]
When a star has collapsed then the rotation rate of the core may have become so strong that thus jets are produced, where in other supernovae (or novae) types a “total” explosion may be more likely.
Perhaps novae and smaller supernovae are slightly different, thus producing no jets. For instance: after a certain burning process stops in a star and radiation pressure is diminished the star contracts until a different process or different processes start: heavier (than helium) elements start burning up to iron very fast (within days/weeks/months), which may bring a “total” explosion/reaction (all around the object in a certain layer) rather than jets.
A supernova explosion may be “total”, i.e. the whole object explodes. Such an object may be a star, or a dark matter object with no gasses at all with other dark matter falling on the core, for instance: a darkened dwarf elliptical or darkened globular cluster falling into its central core (4-4, 5-2).
[June 13 2005: When in 1987 supernova 1987A blew up in the Large Magellanic Cloud, it was the closest supernova in over 300 years, and a great opportunity to study this rare occurrence close up. According to big bang astronomers a neutron star or black hole should have formed at the centre of the expanding ring of debris, but so far, nobody can find it338.
Perhaps the object that exploded in 1987 exploded “totally” as mentioned above. Perhaps that can be the reason why so far no object with neutron star or black hole features has been observed at the centre of the expanding ring of debris. End June 13 2005]
It does not really matter if it is uranium or something else that explodes, the point is: without the black hole concept one may get a certain point where a massive dark matter object explodes.
One thing may be important here with respect to the hereafter explained radio loud activity of AGNs: “total” supernova's, i.e. no jets, may occur only when the object is very compact and extremely sphere-shaped, i.e. little flattening at the poles by (strong) rotation.
3 things may be important for triggering a “total” explosion: enough matter (i.e. enough gravitational contraction), extra pressure by (gravitationally) infalling matter and not too much rotation by the core (i.e. not too much centrifugal force that makes the (thin/weak) poles of the core explode first, thus forming double sided jets).
(An AGN core that explodes “totally” instead off giving radio loud jets may cause ring galaxies, 4-4. Though it may not necessarily be an AGN that explodes, perhaps in normal galaxies matter can fall into a central core (as well).)
[July 20 2007: With amount and kind of mass, extra infalling (merging) matter and rotation, all kind of magnitudes of explosion may come to existence. This may explain why a new class of explosion recently was found: much fainter than a supernova and much brighter than a nova456. End July 20 2007]
[September 23 2005: If dark matter objects can explode and produce double sided jets then perhaps also Young Stellar Objects (YSOs) and the ejected outer layers from old red giants369 may be explained with exploding dark matter. That is if stars and red giants have dark matter cores as suggested in 7-1. End September 23 2005]
[December 23 2006: Big bang astronomers link long gamma-ray bursts with the explosive deaths of massive stars, so-called hypernovae. However, there are gamma-ray bursts that show no rebrightening due to a supernova. How this can be is a mystery. Big bang astronomers see it as a possibility that a massive black hole formed that did not allow any matter to escape. All the material that is usually ejected in a supernova explosion would then fall back and be swallowed. The astronomers see it as first conclusive evidence that such gamma-ray bursts most likely originate from the collision of compact objects: neutron stars or black holes455.
Perhaps a gamma-ray burst can be caused by two dark matter objects merging and then producing a gamma-ray burst by strong heating by gravity (or by an exothermic process because of elements lighter than iron fusing into heavier elements), which then is followed by cooling down because of an endothermic process fusing elements heavier than iron into heavier elements. This double process is discussed in 6-1 explaining a new pulsar-process. End December 23 2006]
Different types of supernovae may be explained with different types of matter that gravitationally contract. Two extremes may exist: A. dark matter compact cores with little surrounding gas (for instance: an extremely big dark matter object or a group of dark matter objects that falls into a central point/core); B. gas spheres with little dark matter (for instance: a massive star or a globular/open cluster falling into a central point/core).
A GRB (or a certain type of GRB) may be an Extreme A explosion two months after an Extreme B explosion.
Perhaps thus one may look at a (certain type) GRB as a “Type III” supernovae explosion (Extreme A two months after Extreme B), where Extreme B supernovae may be looked at as Type II supernovae. Smaller Extreme A supernovae may be looked at as Type Ia supernovae (see also 5-2).
Depending on the temperature and pressure in the object (prior to the supernova) different kind of end products may be emitted to space (in a jet or by a total explosion). Possible products are protons and electrons, thus supernovae may be a way of hydrogen production. Other products may be: iron, lead, magnesium, lithium and all other kind of elements.
Depending on the temperature and pressure one may get all kind of products, with certain rules. One rule may concern relatively low temperatures and pressures: the lower the temperature and pressure the heavier the end products (i.e. in the case smaller elements fuse into heavier elements, like iron). Another rule may concern relatively high temperatures and pressures: the higher the temperature and pressure the lighter the end products (i.e. in the case heavy elements, like uranium, break down into smaller elements).
Perhaps that certain types of supernovae are caused by lighter elements than iron fusing fast into higher elements (which would come closer to the current way of looking at supernovae).
Perhaps also that certain dark matter objects (falling into a central core) have no light elements that can fuse into elements closer to iron, i.e. the objects are basically made of iron and higher elements, but there is not enough mass to start an uranium breakdown reaction. Then the dark matter objects may just “rebound” after falling together to a very concentrated point with tremendous heat and pressure that will be released in the novae/supernovae. Such a rebound mechanism may lead to certain conclusions about supernovae, but perhaps also about novae and/or dwarf novae.
Perhaps (part of) the “rebounding” is done by gravity particles coming from the matter in the core and causing a repulsive force from inside out (3-2).
Such a rebound-mechanism may be a small chance, though, for iron and higher elements then may be more likely to start fusing into higher elements, which then would cool down the dark matter object (6-1).
[February 2004: Though, perhaps the contraction goes so fast that the object can't be cooled down fast enough, which makes it explode. End February 2004]
Perhaps that stars/objects need a certain minimum mass to become a supernovae/GRB. This may explain why there are fewer weak GRBs and why all Type Ia supernovaes have virtually the same luminosity, 5-2.
Observations of an optical component to the April 25, 1998, gamma ray burst (GRB980425) indicated that a special set of supernovae - the hypernova - might be a contributor. Scientists searched in the area where the burst had come from and in an arm of the spiral galaxy ESO 184-G82 they found a brilliant star that was not in previous images50.
Perhaps that the star is the (hot) remains of dark matter that exploded (for instance by dark matter objects coalescing into one (too) heavy object).
Perhaps that a “total” explosion, i.e. an explosion blasting outwards in all directions, can explain the very rapid fading of some GRBs51: very hot small particles produced by the explosion may cool off very quickly.
(Though perhaps jets can do the same thing: small hot particles blown out of an object, after which the object closes itself after which the dark object can not be observed.)
[October 24 2005: An international team of big bang astronomers has for the first time observed the visible light from a short gamma-ray burst. Using the 1.5m Danish telescope at La Silla (Chile), they showed that these short, intense bursts of gamma-ray emission most likely originate from the violent collision of two merging compact objects373.
The big bang astronomers think that the two merging objects ought to be neutron stars. However, perhaps the short GRBs rather can be explained by the merging of two dark matter objects. End October 24 2005]
Astronomers have identified two major types of supernovae: Type II, in which a massive star is supposed to explode; and Type Ia, in which a white dwarf star is supposed to explode because it has pulled too much material from a nearby companion star onto itself.
Type Ia 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 supernovae8). Type Ia supernovae have no hydrogen or helium lines in their optical spectra and hence may originate from dark matter coming to an explosion. Type Ia supernovae are expected to come from progenitors that are very uniform throughout the universe8, which concentrated (old) dark matter is.
Type Ia supernovae glow as bright as five billion suns for a week. All Ia's have virtually the same luminosity--just as all 100-Watt light bulbs produce the same amount of light.
Type Ia supernovae may be caused by the collapse or/and detonation of dark matter objects. For instance: a very old globular or open cluster which has darkened to a group of dark matter objects with no or hardly gas left that coalesces. Or: a pulsar “runs out of fuel” (6-1). Concentrated dark matter that does not rotate strongly may have a critical mass, beyond which it explodes, which may make all Ia's having virtually the same luminosity.
[May 2004: Rotation (not very strong, so enough gravitational contraction) of the dark matter may be the reason why Type Ia supernovae do not explode in a perfectly spherical manner. Researchers have been able to show that at peak brightness a Type Ia supernovae was slightly flattened, with one axis shorter by about 10 percent84. By a week later, however, the visible explosion was virtually spherical. As spherical symmetry begins to dominate, about a week after maximum, it's not because the supernova is changing shape, but because different layers of it are seen. Outer layers expanding at thousands of kilometers a second grow diffuse and become transparent, allowing the inner layers to become visible. When the supernova starts, the outer part is aspherical, but as we see lower down, the dense inner core is spherical84.
The inner core of a dark matter object will have more spherical layers of certain matter. When the very core of the supernovae explodes than the outer (more flattened by rotation) layers will show an aspherical supernovae, but later the more inward layers light up, which are more spherical. End May 2004]
Type II supernovae show strong hydrogen lines, big bang cosmologists think that Type II supernovae arise from evolved stars much more massive than our Sun (10-100 MSun). They occur only in spirals8. Perhaps darkened or almost darkened dwarf ellipticals or globular clusters (with still a lot of hydrogen) may end as Type II supernovae (too) (4-4). Those dwarf ellipticals and globular clusters (that have been swallowed by a major galaxy) need time to shrink, and, especially: major galaxies must have the time to swallow them, which may be the reason why Type II supernovae only occur in (old) spiral galaxies (with ellipticals being the progenitors of spirals, 4-3).
[May 2004: Type II supernovae are more aspherical than Type Ia supernovae84. A lot of gas (hydrogen) around an exploding dark matter object may be the reason why. A mantle of light elements like hydrogen will be more flattened than the outer layers of a dark matter object.
Perhaps that Type II supernovae can come to existence if two or more stars coalesce or when a star and one or more dark matter objects coalesce. This coalescence then would bring the cores of the multiple objects together, thus many very heavy elements (like uranium) may be brought together, which may bring the heavy element content of the new core above a certain limit (for instance the Type Ia limit, if Type Ia explosions are caused by dark matter objects growing beyond a critical mass limit as mentioned above). In that case Type Ia and Type II supernovae may share the same explosion mechanism, one without a hydrogen layer (Type Ia) and one with a hydrogen layer (Type II). Coalescence of multiple objects is likely to happen in the arms of spirals where Type II supernovae occur. Coalescence may also explain why Type II supernovae are more aspherical (the new formed object explodes before it has become spherical).
There has been reports about a star coalescing with (3) dark matter objects, which was suggested to bring explosions117.
Objects that produce Type Ia supernovae may be smaller than objects producing Type II supernovae because of gravitational shielding by hydrogen layers in objects that can produce Type II supernovae (3-2). End May 2004]
[June 2004: Using the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope in Chile, big bang researchers determined that supernova 2002ic exploded inside a flat, dense, clumpy disk of dust and gas. Supernova 2002ic is unusual because its spectrum otherwise resembles a typical Type Ia supernova but exhibits a strong hydrogen emission line128. Perhaps this is an example of how Type I and Type II supernovae may not be totally strangers from one another and may share the same explosion mechanism. The supernova 2002ic exploding inside a flat, dense, clumpy disk of dust and gas may hint towards the coalescence of multiple objects triggering the explosion. End June 2004]
If Type II supernovae arise from massive stars then: it may take a lot of time for stars to become very big in the case such stars have become big by blackening, cooling down, assembling hydrogen, star phase, blackening, assembling hydrogen, star phase, blackening etc. (7-1)
One may then wonder about Type Ia supernovae occurring in both ellipticals and spirals.
Type Ia supernovae may be caused by (single) old dark matter objects or groups of old dark matter objects, both may be everywhere throughout the universe (4-1).
When (single) dark matter objects are sucked into a galaxy they may be contracted stronger by stronger flows of gravity particles (3-2) producing stronger gravitational contraction. Also: more gas/dust, which is much more concentrated in galaxies than in intergalactic space, will fall on the dark matter object. Hence the dark matter object may explode. When a group of dark matter objects is sucked into a galaxy and gets confronted with stronger flows of gravity particles then the orbiting velocities within the group may be stopped stronger (by inertial forces by gravity, 3-2) and the group objects is pushed stronger towards each other by gravity too. And: with more gas and dust in the galaxy the group of dark matter objects falls into a central point faster as well.
Hence Type Ia supernovae may occur in both spirals as well as ellipticals and not in intergalactic space. [July 2004: Though, with dark matter exploding, thus bringing a Type Ia supernova, one may expect to observe Type Ia supernovae too in shrunken dark galaxies or g-galaxies, i.e. (apparently) intergalactic space. End July 2004]
In conventional astronomy an assembled layer of helium on a neutron star burns to carbon at once, thus producing an X-ray burst52. X-rays then are produced by high-energy particles (electrons, nuclei). I like to suggest another mechanism here.
Perhaps in X-ray bursters lighter elements than iron fuse into higher elements, like iron or elements lighter than iron (or (some) elements higher than iron as well). What happens then is: an X-ray burster contracts gravitationally until a reaction is triggered and elements are fused into higher elements (iron or lower than iron), which produces a burst of energy, which causes an explosion, which produces an X-ray burst. The explosion diminishes the pressure and thus the exothermic reaction stops. After the explosion/X-ray burst the X-ray burster contracts again, until the next reaction/explosion, etc.
Small dark matter pieces of 1010 K may act as black bodies sending out gamma rays for a very short time, which may, as mentioned above, cause gamma ray bursts. Small dark matter pieces of 107 - 108 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 107 - 108 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 (or only rarely falls back), plus: bigger (X-ray) pieces fall back sooner than smaller (gamma ray) pieces (which may degrade very quick, having temperatures above 1010 K, see hereafter).
Gamma ray bursts have frequencies from 50 to 106 keV. As mentioned in 5-1: 1010-1012 K may be a certain critical temperature range, above 1010-1012 K elements may degrade.
Hence if gamma ray bursts and X-ray bursts are caused by thermal blackbody radiation then it may be no surprise that gamma ray bursts correspond with blackbody effective temperatures above 1010 K (with an explosion that causes the object to change dramatically, hence the gamma burst won't be repeated) and X-ray bursts correspond with blackbody effective temperatures below 1010 K (which won't cause the object to change dramatically, and hence X-ray bursts are repeated).
[September 6 2006: Such a way of looking at gamma ray bursts and X-ray bursts would mean that X-ray bursts are smaller brothers of gamma ray bursts. A recent observation concerning a gamma ray/X-ray burst makes big bang astronomers think this way too. They think that the GRB-supernova connection to X-ray flashes and fainter supernovae may imply a common origin. The difference between the too would be made by the mass of the exploding object434. End September 6 2006]
[July 20 2007: Recently more observations were done that point towards a common origin where it comes to the GRB's, supernovae and X-ray bursters: gamma-ray bursts are often followed minutes to hours later by short-lived but powerful X-ray flares. The flares suggest that gamma-ray bursts central engines remain active long after the prompt emission.
Swift's Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) recently picked up an initial gamma-ray burst in the constellation Libra. Then, from about 70 to 200 seconds after the initial burst, the BAT and Swift's X-ray Telescope registered five flares. Each flare exhibited rapid and large-scale variability in intensity, but the overall energy steadily diminished from flare to flare. Moreover, the peak photon energy of each flare “softened” by progressing from gamma-rays to X-rays (from higher to lower energy). The prompt gamma-ray emission and the subsequent X-ray flares appear to form a continuously connected and evolving succession of events. This observation clearly showed a gradual evolution with time in the properties of the flares within the same GRB. However, in other GRBs there are typically only one or two flares that are bright enough to be studied in detail, making it hard to reach a similar conclusion457. End July 20 2007]
X-ray bursts can occur in regular intervals of a few hours or a few days, which may be plausible with the above described mechanism. Others fire off in rapid sequence, shooting off several thousand bursts in a day, which may be less plausible with the above described mechanism.
Perhaps there can be a transition area between an X-ray burster and a rapid pulsating X-ray source like Cygnus X-1 (6-1), perhaps an X-ray burster can change into an X-ray pulsar like Cygnus X-1. Thus an exothermic reaction of the X-ray burster may slowly change into an endothermic reaction of an X-ray pulsar like Cygnus X-1, which then would be logical: if the elements are changed into elements like iron an endothermic reaction may follow when the elements are processed into higher elements by gravitational contraction.
[February 2004: Or perhaps that all X-ray bursters have a pulsar mechanism as described in 6-1. End February 2004]
[January 8 2007: European Space Agency's XMM-Newton satellite has found a variable X-ray source in a globular cluster. They think this variable X-ray source shows evidence for the existence of a still-speculative new class of black holes called intermediate-mass black holes. When the object is a black hole indeed it is the first black hole found in a globular cluster446.
Perhaps one should rather think in terms of a large object that has a lot of heavy elements. The heavy elements may bring a variable X-ray source because of one of the above described mechanisms. End January 8 2007]
[June 2004: Low mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) that are only twice as massive as the Sun can be up to 500,000 times more powerful. According to big bang astronomers LMXBs shine because material from the companion star spirals onto the black hole or neutron star and this material gives out X-rays as a result of being heated to over a million degrees202.
With dark matter objects with very heavy elements different reactions may occur. Because big bang cosmologists can only think about gas clouds that contract (thus giving stars that can't be enormous objects with very heavy elements) they have to take refuge to concepts like “material spiraling onto a black hole, travelling at almost the speed of light”. But this then would bring luminous disks around objects, which is not the case. The X-ray objects are spherical.
LMXBs can be persistently bright202. Perhaps that a very fast pulsar mechanism is at work or perhaps that big heavy metal objects can glow by strong gravitational contraction without heavy metals being processed into higher elements than iron (yet) or perhaps that certain pulsars have come to the end of their “fuel” and are heated by decay of heavy elements. End June 2004]
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 bursters are concentrated near the galactic center8.
There will be more very massive dark matter objects near the galactic center and thus also more dark matter objects may act as X-ray bursters. Very massive “dark” matter objects may originate by multiple dark objects merging into one dark matter object, but also by the formation of massive stars, i.e. stars originated by blackening, assembling hydrogen, star phase, blackening, assembling hydrogen, etc. Such dark matter objects are more likely to be found near the galactic center.
Also: closer to the galactic center there may be stronger gravitational contraction (3-2) and more gas and dust. This will fasten the merging of dark matter objects as well as the formation of massive stars in that region of the Galaxy, and makes very heavy dark matter objects more likely to be found there.
About ten bursters are found in globular clusters, about 30% of the total8. I wonder if those X-ray bursters are likely to be found in the center of the globular clusters, which may make dark matter objects (for instance dark matter in the form of an X-ray burster) more likely to be candidates that originate globular clusters (4-4).
If the X-ray bursters are at the centers of the globular clusters then such X-ray bursters may (probably) be the result of multiple old dark matter objects merging into one very massive “dark” matter object. For instance: the very old nucleus of a dwarf elliptical may have merged into one object, the X-ray burster, while other smaller dark matter objects (old stars of the old dwarf elliptical) once triggered the star formation of the globular cluster.
Pulsars have subpulses near the main pulses and I explain this with different reaction regions in the pulsar (6-1). An X-ray burster may have different reaction regions too, which may explain the smaller X-ray peaks next to the main X-ray peaks in burst-intervals of X-ray bursters. One then would expect “sub-X-ray peak movement” in X-ray bursters as there is subpulse movement in pulsars.
Dark matter objects orbiting a central core of a (fast) rotating universal engine may slowly orbit with smaller and smaller orbits around the central core until the dark matter objects merge with the core to become one big compact object.
The new bigger core contracts by gravity, thus building up higher temperatures and pressures, but it also has a strong centrifugal force that makes the temperature and pressure less big.
Perhaps this can bring an enormous big but still growing compact super big core of heavy elements, which may have a hot inside with very high temperatures and high pressure, but which also may have an enormous thick surrounding mantle that can't be broken easily.
Thus an enormous amount of matter may finally come to a point where pressure and temperature inside are very high. The pressure and temperature may be cooled down by: elements higher than iron may be part of nuclear processes that turn them into even heavier elements. This kind of reactions will take energy (because the maximum binding energy per nucleon occurs at iron6, 6-1) and thus the building up of heat and pressure in the very big core of matter may be diminished.
Photons for instance (low energy photons) may be absorbed by elements (like iron) when those elements are processed into higher elements. Low energy photons can penetrate deeply into matter. Thus radiation may be recycled into matter (see also 6-1).
[Some scientists in geophysics speak about Earth expansion (see Kokus in Pushing Gravity5), which they consider to be the result of absorption of gravity particles by the Earth and thus the build-up of mass in the Earth by gravity particles, therefore the Earth expands, which makes the continents on Earth drift apart.
Perhaps the Earth expansion may be caused by absorption of low energy radiation (too) with the here mentioned fusion process, which perhaps takes place in the center of the Earth at a very slow rate .
Right now it is believed that heavier elements than iron are formed during supernovae.
Perhaps (as mentioned above) that during very strong contraction of (strong concentrated) dark matter heavy elements may be formed (as well) in AGNs or in pulsars (6-1): the dark matter has to get rid of energy and perhaps does so by making heavier elements than iron.
If on the other hand dark matter floats through intergalactic space for an extremely long time the opposite may happen: heavy elements decay and release energy. Perhaps this can be the reason why our Earth is hot inside, thus our Earth may have been smaller and colder (perhaps both mechanisms, decay and (some sort of) absorption, can be at work at the same time).]
The cooling down by fusion of heavy elements like iron will stop at a certain point when (about) all elements are converted into the highest element(s) (like uranium). From that moment temperature and pressure may go to extremely high values until a very powerful reaction (or reactions) starts to happen, for instance (enriched) uranium breaking down into smaller pieces as in an atom bomb.
This may cause extra pressure that is too much for the mantle surrounding the core and so the inside of the core may be poured out along the rotation axis of the core and thus radio loud activity may start with one or two jets.
Of course I don't know what kind of reaction(s) occur at such a moment, but I do know that elements heavier than iron can release energy breaking down to iron. Thus it may be that enormous amounts of energy are released during radio loud activity, so immense strong that very heavy elements break down (in the central AGN core) to (mostly) HII and electrons (that are poured out from the core). HII and electrons then may cause thermal bremsstrahlung and synchrotron radiation, thus accounting for (extended) radio (loud) emission. (See also 3-2 for hydrogen production in an infinite universe.)
[August 2004: Big bang astronomers (too) believe that the radio emission in radio loud activity is caused by electrons/charged particles (going very fast through a magnetic field)230.
Big bang astronomers think that black holes in the radio loud AGNs swallow gas and liberate enormous amounts of energy in the process. This energy drives very narrow outflows of gas at velocities close to the speed of light, the jets235. Big bang astronomers too think that the jets are made out of gas/electrons, but where they think the gas has been attracted and spit out again I think that in the central core of the radio loud AGN a process goes on that produces the gas and that this process may very well be the main hydrogen production mechanism in the Universe. End August 2004]
[October 16 2006: NASA and Italian scientists using the Swift spacecraft have for the first time determined what the radio loud particle jets streaming from AGNs are made of. According to the Swift team, these jets appear to be made of protons and electrons, solving a mystery as old as the discovery of jets themselves in the 1970s436. So perhaps radio loud AGN's are the hydrogen producers in an infinite universe indeed. End October 16 2006]
[February 2005: Other big bang astronomers speak only about electrons. They say that radio jets are formed when material falls into massive black holes. Magnetic fields around the black holes accelerate electrons to almost the speed of light. These electrons are then propelled out in narrow jets and radiate at radio frequencies because of their motion in the magnetic fields276. End February 2005]
[November 13 2006: Big bang astronomers have found giant radio arcs surrounding the galaxy cluster Abell 3376 using the Very Large Array. They say that the giant, radio-emitting arcs probably are the result of shock waves caused by violent collisions of smaller groups of galaxies within the cluster. Though they don't how they think that the collisions have transported energy into free electrons that cause the radio waves442.
The radio arcs rather may be the very old remnants (electrons and perhaps also protons) of an old giant radio loud burst by a quasar. End November 13 2006]
[July 11 2006: Within big bang cosmology there have been two competing theories of how emissions arise from the particles of radio-loud jets of quasars - the “Inverse-Compton” theory proposing that the emissions occur when jet particles scatter cosmic microwave background photons, and the “Synchrotron Radiation” theory postulating a separate population of extremely energetic electrons or protons that cause the high-energy emission. Recently the jet of the radio-loud quasar 3C273 was observed in infrared, visible light and X-rays. The combined data strongly suggest that ultra-energetic particles in the 3C273 jet are producing their light via synchrotron radiation. This evidence favoring the synchrotron model deepens the mystery of how radio-loud quasars produce the ultra-energetic particles that radiate at X-ray wavelengths, because it is hard for big bang astronomers to see how black holes can drive such fast jets425.
Things are easier explained when you forget about black holes and look at radio-loud quasars as big assemblages of old stars and galaxies that spit out protons and electrons under enormous pressure as described above. End July 11 2006]
[May 2004: In 6-1 I suggest a mechanism in pulsars that may function as a cooling down mechanism in the Universe: iron and elements higher than iron fusing into higher elements. Another cooling down mechanism may be: iron and elements lower than iron breaking down into protons and electrons (as here suggested with radio loud activity). The two mechanisms that produce heat in the Universe are the opposites: hydrogen and higher elements fusing into higher elements up to iron and very high elements like uranium breaking down into smaller elements up to iron. This way the Universe as a whole does not heat up nor does it cool down, therefore the overall temperature of the Universe may be balanced for a very simple reason. End May 2004]
Perhaps that only very much later HII and electrons (re)combine in such a magnitude that HI produces a strong HI 21-cm line (5-3). The HI 21-cm line has been detected in absorption in the spectra of a few radio-loud QSOs43.
[July 2004: One may wonder if it is possible that a very big core such as here described sometimes may not have a big enough “mantle” to prevent the object from exploding “totally”, i.e. no radio loud jets then would be seen but an eruption of material/gas from the center of a galaxy instead (with still the material poured out along the rotation axis). Such an eruption may have been observed. Chandra's X-ray image has been combined with Hubble's optical image to compose a stunning and revealing picture of the spiral galaxy NGC 3079. Towering filaments consisting of warm (about ten thousand degrees Celsius) and hot (about ten million degrees Celsius) gas blend to create a bright horseshoe-shaped feature near the center of this galaxy216. End July 2004]
[June 2004: A team of astronomers has detected the presence of intermediate-age and young stellar populations in the halo of the Centaurus A, the closest radio loud galaxy. The youngest stars appear to be aligned with the radio jet produced by the center of Centaurus A189.
This can be seen as evidence for hydrogen production by radio loud activity, i.e. when those young stars have gotten HII/electrons/HI from the radio loud jet by Centaurus A. End June 2004]
[July 2004: Also visible light from AGN jets have been observed and, but more recently, scientists using the orbiting observatory Chandra have discovered that X-ray emission from jets is also common. Big bang astronomers think that the X-rays come from electrons carrying large amounts of energy. Regions of a jet of Centaurus A that are emitting the most X-rays were found to be stationary. The interpretation the team put on this finding is that the stationary regions are where the jet is stalled when it encounters clouds of gas or peculiar stars. The X-ray emission would be produced by the powerful shock generated as the fast jet flow runs into the stationary material209.
They may be right, but I wonder whether are not the X-ray emission (too) may be caused by large dark matter objects (5-1) that have been fuelled with HII/electrons/HI from the jet by Centaurus A, which then may account for the X-rays to be stationary. End July 2004]
[June 2004: Also (relatively) small (compact) objects like X-ray bursters may produce (relatively small) radio jets by the same mechanism, i.e. heavy elements breaking down to HII and electrons. This may explain the observed radio jet of the X-ray burster Circinus X-1149. Such smaller radio jets can also be seen as a hydrogen production mechanism in the universe.
[July 24 2007: Recently the jet was observed again in X-rays by an international team of big bang astronomers. They measured that the jet is about 3 light years long. The astronomers think that the jet emanates from a neutron star that has a mere 10 kilometer radius. Measured on the scale of the object generating it, Circinus X-1 is very impressive for the astronomers. In terms of power, their neutron star seems to have the same efficiency as (what they call) black holes: "The fact that neutron stars are just as efficient in making jets, despite having shallower gravitational potential and none of the gimmicks that spinning black holes have, is an important new insight."459.
I think Circinus X-1 is not what big bang astronomers call a neutron star (6-1). The object may have a radius much larger than a mere 10 kilometer. It may have a mechanism inside that breaks down elements, causing an outburst of energy. A mechanism that ejects jets into the universe from its interior rather than having the big bang model of a (very) small neutron star attracting matter and then throwing this matter back into space. A mechanism that is also suggested by big bang astronomers when it comes to the radio loud activity of “black holes” (radio galaxies and radio loud quasars). End July 24 2007]
SS 433 is a binary star system within our Galaxy in the constellation Aquila about 16,000 light years away. Big bang astronomers think one of the two objects in the system to be a “black hole”, the object shoots off 2 jets at 175 million miles per hour, 26 percent of light speed. The team thinks that the high-speed jets in nearby SS 433 may be caused by the same mechanisms as the powerful outflows in AGNs. They determined the length of the X-ray-emitting portion of the jet (over one million miles, about five times the distance from the Earth to the Moon); the temperature range (dropping from about 100 million degrees Celsius to 10 million degrees farther out); the chemical abundances (iron, silicon, and more); and the jet opening angle (a base diameter of about 1,280 miles). Of the hundreds of jets observed in the radio and X-ray bands, this is the only one for which there is a solid statement that it contains atomic nuclei and for which it is sure to have internal temperature and density153.
Perhaps that jets from AGNs have atomic nuclei heavier than HII too. Though, jets from relatively small objects as with SS 443 may originate from less strong gravitational contraction and lower concentrations of (very) heavy elements and thus the process producing the jets may be generating less heat as well as that it takes place under less pressure. Therefore one may see iron and silicone in such relatively small jets, elements that may not be found (at least not in such concentrations) in the jets of AGNs.
[May 18 2007: Researchers have found that the “black hole” at the center of the NGC 4051 galaxy emits jets of chemical elements including carbon and oxygen451. End May 18 2007]
With the way of galaxy formation as described on this website, i.e. old galaxies becoming the centers of future galaxies, the center of the Milky Way is likely to have big “dark” matter objects with much very heavy elements. Jets coming from such objects may explain the observed radio filaments in the center of the Milky Way166. End June 2004]
[October 2003: Mitchell75 too has suggested that radio loud jets (from radio loud galaxies) may provide material for new stars/galaxies. End October 2003]
[March 25 2005: The very largest black holes reach a certain point and then grow no more, according to the best survey to date of black holes made with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory300.
If so, then perhaps the upper limit is caused by radio loud activity. Perhaps that when the amount of mass within a compact source, or big ball, of an AGN reaches a certain limit the compact source will start radio loud activity. (Also radiation pressure from the compact source may bring an upper limit by keeping away gas and dust from the compact source. But if so, then what about dark matter objects moving to the compact source?) End March 25 2005]
Perhaps that in a supernovae elements break down to (a lot of) iron53, cobalt8 and/or nickel54 where during AGN radio loud activity the end products are mostly protons and electrons (because of the extremely high pressures and temperatures in AGNs).
Perhaps that the bursts that start radio loud activity (i.e. the moment hot energetic particles break through the thick mantle) can cause gamma ray bursts (5-2).
[October 2003: There has been some fuss about superluminal speeds of jets of radio loud AGNs. Right now science thinks that nothing can go faster than light, which is something that may be wrong (for instance in the case of gravity particles/gravitons, 3-1). Gravity particles may go faster than light, but it may be very hard for larger particles such as protons to go faster than light. If larger particles like protons go faster than light then there may be 2 ways in which this can happen. One is: supernovae. Two: radio loud jets. Perhaps the jets of radio loud AGNs can have speeds faster than light which then may explain superluminal speeds of the jets (some scientists suggest that there are no superluminal speeds because the jets are in the line of sight8 where others suggest that radio loud AGNs may be more nearby29). When an airplane breaks through the speed of sound there is a loud “sound bang”. Perhaps that if material breaks through the speed of light there is a loud “light bang”, perhaps in the form of a gamma burst. Perhaps such a light-bang-mechanism can explain certain types of gamma ray bursts. End October 2003]
[September 5 2006: Recent research concerning quasars and gamma ray bursts came up with something strange. If you look at a quasar, you'll see a galaxy in front 25% of the time. But for gamma ray bursts, there's almost always an intervening galaxy. Even though they could be separated by billions of light years. The researchers have several explanations why there is always a galaxy between us, i.e. the observers, and the gamma ray burst. One of the explanations is that the gas has something to do with the gamma ray burst. The gas may have a different redshift because of a certain fast velocity of the gas. The researchers think it may be possible that the gamma ray bursts have actually spat out this gas during the explosion, at very high velocities so that it has a different velocity than the gamma ray burst itself, and that's the reason for the difference in redshift, and hence causing the researchers to say the gamma ray burst and the gas have difference distances. However, the counterargument to it, and it's a solid one the researchers say, is that in many cases, the researchers not only observed the gas, but also stars from the galaxy that must be hosting that gas. So not only would the gas have to be ejected, but a galaxy would have to be ejected by the gamma ray burst, and that starts to stretch the imagination of the big bang researchers. The researchers consider other explanations they have for their measurements also to be unlikely430.
If the jets of radio loud AGNs can have speeds faster than light (5-2) then protons and electrons may be spit out by the quasar travelling for very long time ahead of the photons of the (gamma ray) burst. So when the photons of the (gamma ray) burst finally catches up with the photons and electrons then by then gas and even stars may have been formed out of the photons and electrons. If so then the radio loud cloud should be directed to us. But perhaps that extremely massive objects can also explode “totally” (5-2) and perhaps such explosions bring what we call gamma ray bursts. End September 5 2006]
[February 2004: Recently a group of scientists78 looked at the higher-energy gamma-ray photons of a gamma-ray burst from 1994, named GRB941017. The scientists found that the higher-energy gamma-ray photons dominated the burst: They were at least three times more powerful on average than the lower-energy component yet, surprisingly, thousands of times more powerful after about 100 seconds. That is, while the flow of lower-energy photons hitting the satellite's detectors began to ease, the flow of higher-energy photons remained steady. The finding is inconsistent with the popular (conventional) “synchrotron shock model” describing most gamma-ray bursts. Perhaps GRB941017 can be explained with lower-energy photons caused by the (crushing of the) thick mantle and higher-energy gamma-ray photons caused by the hot material that broke through the mantle.
Hereafter it is argued that ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays may be caused by the start of radio loudness (5-2). Ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (as well as high-energy electrons) being responsible for gamma-ray bursts is something that has been suggested by conventional scientists78. A delayed injection of ultrahigh-energy electrons would require a revision of the standard (conventional) burst model, but may easily be explained with the in this chapter described model of radio loud activity starting by high-energy electrons (and high-energy protons/HII) breaking through a thick mantle. End February 2004]
Radio activity thus may be something like the eruption of a volcano and thus it may not be surprising that the “fountains” of radio activity by radio galaxies are very thin where they come out of the center of radio galaxies and that they move outward with extremely high speeds.
(Perhaps that instead of electrons and/or HII dust can cause radio loud activity (too). In 5-1 it is argued that radio spectra of compact AGN sources may be caused by very cold dark matter objects. Perhaps that enormous dust clouds cooled down to very low temperatures may cause radio loud FR II lobes as well as radio loud FR I streams. I consider this as unlikely, though, because then the “dust jet” should be very hot when leaving the central source in radio galaxies.)
During a period of radio loud activity the very inner core of the central sources of radio galaxies may be likely to cool down, because of the release of energy by radio loud outflows.
A lot of iron is observed in the intergalactic gas in clusters.
Theoretical (conventional science) models of the emission of ionized iron lines require iron abundances (relative to hydrogen) about half that of the Sun8.
Iron in intergalactic gas in clusters may come from AGN-jets (too) (5-2, 5-2). Thus, the intergalactic iron may come from outside the cluster (too) and not (or at least less) by supernovae in the galaxies of the cluster, as conventional science thinks right now8.
[On Earth there is always a break down mechanism for biological entities when they die. Larger biological cells are broken down into smaller parts. Thus, the smaller parts, i.e. atoms and molecules, are used to build up life again. The overall energy source that feeds life on Earth is sunlight.
Something similar may happen on an atomic level. Heavy atoms are broken down into small atoms, i.e. hydrogen, which then produce new stars/sunlight. Both the hydrogen fusion process in our Sun and the (suggested) break down process in radio loud AGNs are “fed” by gravity particles, giving the energy.
One then wonders if a similar process goes on a level deeper, i.e. is something “feeding” processes producing gravity particles? If yes, then perhaps this may mean that there are smaller particles than gravity particles (3-2).]
Radio loud jets may basically consist of HII and electrons with small amounts of helium and heavy elements. Certain cosmic rays may be produced this way and thus (certain) cosmic rays may have a chemical composition close to the chemical composition of radio loud jets from AGNs (high-energy cosmic rays may be produced at the start of radio loudness, 5-2). If (certain) cosmic rays are produced this way then this may solve the high energy problem of (some) cosmic rays.
[August 2004: Big bang astronomers have observed the hint of a possible connection between the arrival directions of ultra-high energy cosmic rays and locations on the sky of nearby dormant galaxies hosting quasar remnants241. Such quasar remnants may have been radio loud AGNs in the past. End August 2004]
It may also solve the problem with the abundance of so-called light-nuclei: lithium, beryllium, and boron, which are virtually absent in stellar atmospheres8. If such nuclei are produced by radio loud activity then light nuclei can be primary particles.
Right now the light nuclei problem is solved by the spallation mechanism: original heavy cosmic rays collide with interstellar matter and during such collisions the heavy nuclei break up into lighter ones8, which may, of course, solve the problem too.
(If the spallation mechanism is at work in the Universe then this may solve (part of) the hydrogen production question too: heavier nuclei then may break up into protons as well.) (The velocity of cosmic rays may be diminished by inertial forces by gravity particles (3-2, 5-3) (too).)
Right now the in conventional science suggested cosmic ray sources are: supernovae, supersupernovae (hypernovae), pulsars55 and AGNs49.
The big problem is explaining ultra high-energy cosmic rays (UHECRs), like 1020 eV iron nuclei or very fast protons. With the in this chapter described mechanisms concerning supernovae and AGN radio loud activity it may not be surprising that iron (having the maximum binding energy per nucleon) is very prominent in the ultra high-energy cosmic rays.
At the highest energies single protons carrying many Joules of energy have been detected, the most energetic particles ever found, but the mechanism that produces those particles is unknown56.
Radio loudness may produce such fast protons. Perhaps also the in 4-4 described way of ring galaxy formation.
Protons that get accelerated to high speeds are likely to generate a large associated flux of photo-produced pions, which decay to gamma rays and neutrinos49. This may explain gamma ray bursts and neutrino bursts in supernovae. It may also make gamma ray bursts produced at the start of radio loudness (5-2) more likely.
Cosmic ray electrons are likely to be primary particles8. Perhaps cosmic ray electrons can be produced by radio loud activity too as well as by supernovae (and perhaps by pulsars too, 6-1). Though it seems that electrons can't be of extragalactic origin55.
There may be an AGN chain that starts with universal engines (4-1) slowly building up AGN activity.
The nuclei of non-AGN-spirals, like our Galaxy (with a universal engine in the galactic nucleus, 4-1), may contract while attracting hydrogen and by doing so it may start AGN activity. Thus spirals may become LINERs which may become Seyfert 2s which may become Seyfert 1s (5-1). Seyfert 1s may become radio quiet QSOs which may become radio loud quasars. (This would explain why the properties of QSOs and Seyfert galaxies show considerable overlap.) The more disk-shaped host-system of a Seyfert may shrink, meanwhile the more sphere-shaped AGN (in the Seyfert host system) may attract new (outboard) hydrogen, thus originating a new (elliptical) future host galaxy for the future AGN, i.e. quasar.
Radio quiet QSOs may attract during very long times new hydrogen, thus originating a new elliptical host galaxy (see also 4-3), but also: infalling stars/dark matter objects may make the AGN more luminous. In the LINER's and Seyfert's phases hydrogen was probably already attracted too, which may have “fed” the host galaxy as well as the AGN. Seyfert 2s may assemble material during their (possible) transformation into Seyfert 1s, which would explain why Seyfert 2s are about one magnitude fainter than Seyfert 1s. The same may be the case with Seyferts 1s during their (possible) transformation into radio quiet QSOs. And also: the same may be the case with radio quiet QSOs turning into radio loud QSOs.
Radio quiet QSOs may burst into radio loudness because of infalling new matter and thus radio quiet quasars may become radio loud quasars which later may become elliptical radio galaxies which may become (normal) ellipticals (which may become (normal) spirals, see 4-3). (Host galaxies of radio-loud QSOs are more luminous than optically inactive radio galaxies, typically by 0.5-1.0 mag for similar galaxies of comparable radio luminosity43. With radio-loud QSOs as progenitors of radio galaxies one would expect the host galaxies of radio galaxies to be more luminous than the host galaxies of radio-loud quasars. That's why I think that Seyferts and radio quiet QSOs may be the progenitors of radio galaxies (too), see 5-1.)
Or: elliptical radio galaxies may become spiral radio galaxies, which may become (normal) spirals.
One can thus think about an AGN chain, looking, for instance, at AGNs as mentioned above, but how the AGN chain really works is, of course, something to be sought out. Perhaps it can be very complicated, with all kind of transformation ways, see for instance Fig. 5-3-I. (Perhaps there can be an AGN chain like: radio galaxies –› Seyfert 1s –› Seyferts 2s –› LINERs –› normal spiral galaxy. Or: radio loud QSO –› radio quiet QSO (5-3) –› Seyfert.)
Figure 5-3-I. Possible (though many perhaps not likely) transformations of AGN types (NLRG = narrow-line radio galaxy, BLRG = broad-line radio galaxy; I forgot to draw an arrow from “radio quiet QSO” to “BLRG”).
The AGN chain may also depend on the amount of mass in an AGN. Perhaps that the amount of mass (sometimes) determines whether a Seyfert 1 will become a QSO (larger amount of mass) or a radio galaxy (smaller amount of mass).
Larger amounts of mass may need more time before radio activity stars, i.e. perhaps that relatively small Seyfert 1s directly can turn into a radio loud object, i.e. a spiral radio galaxy, and that relatively large Seyfert 1s turn into a radio loud object (i.e. quasar) indirectly by becoming a radio quiet QSO first. Much mass in the very core of an AGN may mean that it will take a relatively long time before radio loud activity breaks through the (then) thick mantle (5-2); and: the rotation of the very core may be faster with a smaller core which may bring radio loud activity earlier as well (5-2).
[February 2004: I got doubts about this. Perhaps that faster rotation of the core brings radio loud activity later instead of earlier, because the core is less compressed. End February 2004]
Also: AGNs may be very likely to descend from g-galaxies rather than single galaxies. Perhaps that our Galaxy together with the smaller surrounding galaxies up to 250 kpc (i.e. about half of the galaxies of our Local Group) may become a (very) small Seyfert in the far future.
[June 2004: I now rather think that the Milky Way will cannibalize the smaller surrounding galaxies (by ripping them apart and have them flow into the Milky Way, 4-1) and that the Milky Way and M33/M31 will become the nucleus of a future galaxy (4-3). So perhaps that our (whole) Local Group rather will become a small Seyfert with two (Milky Way, Andromeda) or three (Milky Way, M31, M33) nuclei in its core. End June 2004]
Most quasars are radio quiet, which may have a good reason. A universal engine (or future AGN) attracts mass. Mass that may cause a new galaxy and may fall close to or into the universal engine which then may contract, perhaps until the (radio quiet) AGN core explodes into a radio loud FR II quasar.
If so then it will probably take a long time before radio loud activity starts, thus a quasar may be a long time in a (radio) quiet state, whereas once it becomes radio loud the outpour of material will be relatively short and after that the (very fast) jets will take a certain time to vanish, which all together probably will be a short time compared with the probably much longer radio quiet attracting-mass-and-building-up-pressure phase.
Thus radio quiet quasars may be much more abundant than radio loud quasars: observations indicate 80% radio quiet versus 20% radio loud43 (though: it may (partly) also be because radio quiet QSOs may be progenitors of radio galaxies, 5-3).
A similar reasoning may explain why the space density of Seyfert 2 galaxies is 3 times the space density of Seyfert 1 galaxies43. Once a Seyfert 2 becomes a Seyfert 1 the Seyfert 1 may turn relatively fast into, for instance, a radio quiet quasar or a radio loud galaxy.
If it is true that radio quiet quasars finally can “burst” into radio loud quasars then how can this happen? As mentioned in 5-2: radio loud activity may start when the pressure, density and heat in the very core of the universal engine (or AGN) becomes so strong that certain reactions are triggered, which then may cause the radio loud jets coming out of the core.
If so then it may be likely that the energy releasing opening will be found on one pole of the (rotating) core, which then immediately will release a lot of immense pressure, thus accounting for a strong limb brightened (FR II) jet on one site of the quasar and at the same time (by releasing pressure) prohibiting the other pole to burst open.
After the release of pressure the opening may close itself and after that the quasar may contract fast and strong because of the lacuna in the core established by the outpour of matter. The quasar may close itself fiercely, thus the pole that brought the opening may not be the pole to burst the next time, i.e. after the quasar has built up enough pressure to explode again the pole on the other side of the quasar may burst open and a limb brightened jet on the other side of the quasar may be poured out. [July 2004: Perhaps it is rather because the quasar has run out of “fuel” on the pole-side that bursted first. End July 2004]
This may account for the jets we see of radio loud (FR II) quasars. FR II jets often appear on only one side of the radio source and in cases where jets are seen on both sides one side is much fainter than the other, and one jet seems to be closer to the quasar than the other43.
Thus one may think of a FR I source as a balloon that releases (all) its air and of a FR II source as a hot-water spouter on Iceland.
The space density of FR Is is 250 times the space density of FR IIs43. This may be because FR II activity may only originate when the central compact object of an AGN is extremely spherical. Very much dark matter merging slowly together to become a very spherical (massive) object may be a small chance.
With FR I sources being much more numerous one may expect that FR Is don't have to have a FR II source as progenitor. Radio quiet QSOs and Seyferts may be progenitors of FR I activity (too).
Radio-loud AGNs constitute a small minority of the AGN population, except at the very high-luminosity end of the distribution, where as many as 50% or so of AGNs are radio-loud quasars43.
Perhaps this can be because at the high-luminosity end radio-loud quasars are easier observed than radio quiet quasars, i.e. the above “observation” is not true. But I guess this is not the reason (for I think that Peterson43 would have brought it up).
A better explanation then may be: if we look at quasars with enormous fluxes we may look at objects (i.e. with the radio loud explanation of 5-2) in which enormous amounts of mass are converted into radio-loud products (like HII and electrons). Such enormous fluxes are the result of enormous amounts of assembled mass.
Where in small QSOs that start radio loud activity the radio-loud phase may be relatively short (hence 80% radio quiet versus 20% radio loud) because of rapid exhaustion of the relatively small amount of matter that can be converted, the radio-loud phase of very high-luminosity quasars may be relatively long (hence 50% radio loud quasars versus 50% radio-quiet quasars), because of a much bigger and longer supply of material that can be converted into radio loud products: when the radio loud phase of a far away and therefore big QSO starts then there probably will be very much surrounding material that can fall into the core.
[June 2004: QSOs at large z may be clusters of (radio quiet) QSOs rather than single QSOs (5-1), which too may be an explanation. End June 2004]
The space density of very high-redshift (z larger than 3.5) QSOs must be extremely low43. This is not surprising when very luminous QSOs are assemblages of enormous amounts of matter, for instance the shrinking of an (extremely) old supercluster to a g-galaxy with an extremely big and compact “big ball” (5-1). [June 2004: QSOs at large z may be clusters of QSOs rather than single QSOs (5-1), which may explain why high-redshift QSOs seem to have low space density. End June 2004]
[July 2003: Next to tired light redshift part of the quasar redshift may be due to gravitational redshift by quasars (5-4), which may make things more complicated. End July 2003]
Approximately 50% of the host galaxies of QSOs show morphological peculiarities43. This may be explained by QSOs being often in a phase in which no new (neat elliptical spherical/oval shaped) galaxy has formed itself around the old g-galaxy (yet). Also: QSOs, being old systems, may often be systems that have been torn up by gravitational forces from companion systems.
[June 2004: QSOs at large z may be clusters of QSOs rather than single QSOs (5-1), which too may be an explanation. End June 2004]
Host galaxies of radio-loud QSOs are likely to be around twice as luminous as the host galaxies of radio-quiet QSOs43. This may be easily explained with radio-quiet QSOs being progenitors of radio-loud QSOs as mentioned above. Radio-loud QSOs then will have had more time to originate bigger host galaxies by attracting (more) (outboard) hydrogen (outboard hydrogen = hydrogen from intergalactic/intercluster space, 4-4).
The soft X-ray spectral index is flatter in radio-loud objects than in radio-quiet objects43. When radio loud objects are older than radio-quiet objects, with more and hotter objects rotating/orbiting in the “big ball” (5-1), this is not surprising.
With the above mentioned normal spirals –› Seyferts –› radio-quiet QSOs –› radio-loud quasars “chain” the (typical) absolute magnitudes of different types of host galaxies (taken from Peterson43) may not be surprising:
Typical B magnitudes of host galaxies of BL Lacertae objects are the highest of all: -21.5 + 5logh0 (5-3).
If (relatively fast or not fast rotating) FR I and FR II sources spout HII into space then this may cause a certain alignment of dark or almost dark galaxies or g-galaxies that light up because they get fuelled by passing streams of HII. (Alignment of galaxies may also happen because galaxies are orbiting in a disk that is seen edge-on, 5-4.) It may cause (part of the) “walls and bridges” throughout the universe.
If FR II systems are likely to spout two lobes (bipolar) along the rotation axis of a compact source, then perhaps this may be a way of fuelling g-galaxies in 2 regions, which may form a binary system later on (which may be part of answering the question why binary systems are found in such high numbers, 4-3).
The old compact source of radio loud activity objects may become a “great attractor” in the far future (like our Great Attractor). Gamma rays and cosmic rays coming from the center of the Local Supercluster29 may be produced by such an old compact source, i.e. remains of a radio loud activity producing compact object, which may have “fuelled” the Local Supercluster extremely long ago.
Radio loud activity may be the basic way of hydrogen production in the universe (5-2).
This may bring an important different clue about galaxy formation and AGN activity: if radio loudness is the key process bringing hydrogen then the concentration of hydrogen can be very different throughout the universe. This may mean that some old dark matter systems (like old g-galaxies) get very poorly fuelled by new formed hydrogen where other old dark matter systems are very much enriched by hydrogen.
Thus it may be that some old dark matter systems become very old and therefore very spherical, while the younger ones are more disk like. The spherical ones may cause ellipticals to come to existence when they are finally fuelled by hydrogen which then may originate very contracted universal engines that show strong AGN activity: broad-line radio galaxies (BLRGs) and radio loud quasars (both ellipticals).
Those type of universal engines may not be likely to bring strong rotation to the elliptical (soon), thus the absence of (strong) rotation of ellipticals may be explained.
Universal engines in the center of clusters may be quite old universal engines and hence spherical; this then may explain why giant ellipticals are found at the centers of clusters.
The younger disk like systems that are sooner fuelled with hydrogen may become spirals that show less strong AGN activity: Seyfert galaxies and radio quiet QSOs.
Thus it may be that spirals don't descend from elliptical galaxies. Or it may be a combination: spirals may descend from ellipticals (thus indirectly originating from universal engines) and spirals may originate directly from a universal engine/g-galaxy (thus without needing a preceding elliptical phase as described in 4-3).
[May 2004: I already changed my mind about this again. Spiral galaxies have dark matter distributions that are spherical (4-4). So a shrunken spiral system too is spherical when it comes to matter distribution. Thus one may expect that new galaxies are always elliptical shaped. End May 2004]
[June 2004: In big bang cosmology a lot of galaxy formation is supposed to come from the collision of galaxies. Of course, within an infinite universe there will be collisions of galaxies as well and so some galaxies are likely to be best explained by the collision of galaxies. Multiple ways of galaxy formation may coexist. End June 2004]
If quasars start the chain of radio loud activity then it may make sense that they are embedded in ellipticals. A big universal engine may contract strongly because of much infalling matter. In 4-3 it is explained that new infalling matter towards a universal engine may originate an elliptical galaxy.
Perhaps a universal engine only needs a certain minimum amount of attracted matter to fall in, after which it produces (QSO) AGN activity. Thus it may be that quasars can be embedded in host galaxies that are very small, or quasars may even have no host galaxy at all, which seems to be observed29: “naked” quasars.
[June 2004: Right now I give it most chance that there are no “naked” quasars. Quasars that appear to have no host galaxy are just much further away than expected so far by big bang astronomers (4-4). End June 2004]
[September 19 2005: Recently no stellar environment was found for quasar HE0450-2958, suggesting that if any host galaxy exists, it must either have a luminosity at least six times fainter than expected a priori from the quasar observed luminosity, or a radius smaller than about 300 light-years. Typical radii for quasar host galaxies range between 6,000 and 50,000 light-years, i.e. they are at least 20 to 170 times larger. The big bang astronomers detected just besides the quasar a bright cloud of about 2,500 light-years in size. Observations showed this cloud to be composed only of gas ionized by the intense radiation coming from the quasar. It is probably the gas of this cloud which is feeding HE0450-2958, allowing it to become a quasar. An intriguing hypothesis of the researchers is that the galaxy harbouring the quasar was almost exclusively made of dark matter366. On this website it is described that quasars may come to existence by gas (from intergalactic space) streaming towards big balls of multiple dark matter objects (5-1). End September 19 2005]
Radio galaxies (or some radio galaxies) may descend from quasars. This would explain why radio galaxies are found in big ellipticals and quasars can be found in relative small ellipticals or (hardly) no elliptical at all: if radio galaxies are older the elliptical has attracted more matter.
According to Arp FR II lobes have higher redshifts than their compact sources29. Perhaps that lobes can shrink (with HII (5-2) in the lobes going to dark galaxies/g-galaxies inside the lobes?).
Why are radio galaxies FR I sources where quasars are FR II sources? The outpouring by quasars is more fiercely if radio loud activity starts with quasars. Hence it may be that quasars have limb brightened jets and radio galaxies (which seem to be weaker radio sources) are center brightened FR I sources.
Perhaps that from a certain moment, after a number of explosions (5-3), the FR II source does not close itself that fiercely anymore and thus a FR II source may become a FR I source with two less strong, and hence center brightened, bipolar jets.
The reason for FR I versus Fr II sources may be different, though. The FR I sources are less strong and they make one remind of the bipolar outflows of collapsing gas clouds in YSOs and of the bipolar outflows of collapsing red giants.
In FR I sources there may have been a collapse too: perhaps enormous amounts of matter (stars/dark matter objects) have fallen into the core of a radio quiet AGN/QSO and thus a too strong contraction of the most inner heavy object may follow, until the object “bursts” into radio loud activity (5-2). But this most inner object may not have reached a very strong spherical state as (presumed above, 5-3) with FR II sources, which may cause two (bipolar) FR I outflows.
And: radio galaxies may be younger and smaller than (radio loud) quasars and thus may have faster rotating (most) inner objects in the nucleus. More rotation means more oblateness and hence eruptions from both poles may be “easier” in radio galaxies than in quasars.
Thus radio loud quasars don't necessarily have to be progenitors of extended radio galaxies. Radio quiet QSOs may be progenitors of radio galaxies (which may (partly) explain why there are 4 times more radio quiet QSOs than there are radio loud quasars). If there is no difference between weak quiet QSOs and strong Seyfert 1s then Seyfert 1s may transform in radio galaxies (BLRGs) too (perhaps that even Seyfert 2s can transform into radio galaxies (NLRGs), which then (too) may explain why there are far more Seyfert 2s than Seyfert 1s, 5-3).
The radio-source axes of AGNs do not seem to show any preferential orientation relative to the rotation axis of the host galaxy43. Perhaps they do have preferential orientation relative to the rotation axis of the universal engine, i.e. compact source, of an AGN.
One then may wonder about the rotation axes of host galaxies and universal engines: one would expect those two axes to show, at least, some corresponding orientation. One may expect galaxies in clusters to show some orbiting preference (see Fig. 4-1-I). When host galaxies of AGNs originate from the outer regions of old g-galaxies and by (outboard, 4-4) matter “flying” in the old g-galaxy region one would expect to see at least some orbiting preference.
Such differences in orientation may later cause barred spirals to originate because the “rest of the galaxy” comes that close to the universal engine that the “rest” takes over the rotation of the universal engine, i.e. compact source (4-4).
There is a wide consensus based on many different imaging studies that radio-quiet QSOs and Seyfert galaxies tend to be found in disk systems (such as spirals and SOs) and radio-loud QSOs and BLRGs tend to be found in elliptical galaxies43.
Perhaps this is because: the AGN-disk systems shrink into spheres. Matter falls into the AGN which then (finally) bursts into radio loudness. Meanwhile the (now more spherical) universal engine/AGN has originated a (more spherical) elliptical host galaxy by attracting hydrogen (and the rotation of the universal engine/AGN may have become higher because of the shrinking; thus old AGN “big balls” may rotate faster, see hereafter, 5-3).
Young systems, as Seyferts (5-3) and BL Lacertae objects (5-3) may be, may show strong variability (i.e. big flux magnitude amplitude) because their (young) nuclei may not be very homogeneous (yet).
Older systems, as QSOs may be, may show fast variability because their nuclei may rotate fast (though this fast variability may be originated as well by more frequent supernovae).
BL Lacertae objects may show fast variability as well if their nuclei are relatively small (5-3).
If AGNs often are in the center of an old g-galaxy then AGNs often are universal engines that attract hydrogen, thus finally originating a (giant) elliptical. Ellipticals have axial rather than spherical symmetry. This then may be due to their progenitors: AGNs too have axial rather than spherical symmetry43.
A normal spiral galaxy in a large region of very empty space may be a very stable system that rotates with orbiting stars that have very low eccentricities (because there is not much gravitational pull by companion galaxies). At the same time there is low gravitational shielding by companion galaxies. What may happen is: a spiral galaxy in empty space may shrink relatively fast with (almost) circular orbiting stars.
Thus the objects in the very core of the galaxy may merge in a very stable way, i.e. a big massive object originates with very high temperatures and pressures in a nucleus surrounded by a thick strong mantle. Such fast shrinking stable spiral galaxies may start radio loud activity when the heavy inner objects “burst” into radio activity (5-2).
Recently a normal spiral galaxy (type Sa or Sb) with radio loud FR I jets has been observed (for the first time)57. The galaxy lies in a space region with a conspicuously low number of galaxies.
There is an inverse correlation between luminosity and amplitude of variability43. This can be explained by: bigger “big balls” (5-1) of more orbiting/rotating objects causing continuum will be more homogeneous and thus variability will be less when those balls rotate. And: in bigger “big balls” obscuring/microlensing foreground objects will have less impact. Also: the luminosity of supernovae will be relatively small compared to the luminosity of the big ball.
Depending on the temperature and pressure in the FR I or FR II source one may get all kind of end products with radio loudness, with certain “rules” as there may be some kind of rules with supernovae too (5-2).
One AGN radio loudness rule may be: the higher the temperature and pressure the lighter the end products (i.e. in the case that heavy elements, like uranium, break down into smaller elements, like iron (nuclei), alpha particles, protons and electrons).
This may mean that FR I sources produce relatively more heavy elements (like iron) than FR II sources, because the temperatures and pressures are (expected to be) lower in FR I sources. FR II sources thus may produce more “pure hydrogen”, i.e. the HII percentage of FR II sources may be higher than the HII percentage of FR I sources (in some Lyα-forest systems high inferred neutral-H column densities and absence of metal lines imply that metals are underabundant relative to solar values43, perhaps such systems can be produced by FR II bursts).
And: the stronger a FR II (or FR I) source the higher the HII percentage may be (because of higher temperatures and pressures). The density of absorbers (where it concerns CIV in BALs) apparently decreases with z, which has been attributed to lower metallicities at high z43 (i.e. in a big bang universe). Perhaps a better explanation may be: at high z the radio loud QSOs become stronger and thus the temperatures in the very AGN cores where the radio loud end-products are produced are higher and so the result may be that more protons are produced relative to the percentage of heavier elements.
The radio map of the double lobes of Cyg A details a wispy structure in the lobes with small, bright spots of emission8. The wispy structure and small, bright spots may be due to old g-galaxies surrounding Cyg A. The radio loud products of the central source of Cyg A may lighten up those old g-galaxies. Within the lobes of Cyg A lie “hot spots” of intense radio emission8. Those radio sources may be the same kind of objects as Sgr A* in the nucleus of our Galaxy (4-1, 5-1).
Though the bright spots may also be old knots that have left the central galaxy (as may be in the case of M87, 5-1).
Extended radio galaxies show a bending sequence from linear classical doubles to nuclear emission bunched up at one end of a tail. This sequence strongly is thought to imply that clusters of galaxies contain a hot, ionized gas (X-ray observations has confirmed the existence of gas in clusters)8.
I wonder if with no gas in a cluster bending of the extended parts of radio galaxies would also happen: perhaps that inertial forces by gravity particles (3-2) play a role in the bending.
AGNs are conspicuously absent in rich clusters, this statement is quite firm for radio-quiet QSOs43.
Rich clusters may consist of gas-fuelled old (dark g-)galaxies. Old, otherwise the galaxies wouldn't be so strongly clustered. Thus the (big) galaxies in rich clusters may, long ago, all have had their AGN active phase and perhaps therefore the galaxies in rich clusters have gone into a “AGN quiet” phase.
It may be logic that the absence of AGNs is quite firm for radio quiet QSOs. Radio quiet QSOs may need a long time to come to existence: from LINERs to Seyferts and then to radio quiet QSOs. So clustering galaxies that are starting to show AGN activity in clusters may first be LINERs and Seyferts.
And: Seyferts may not transform easily in a radio quiet quasar in a rich cluster because of too many galaxies “pulling” (i.e. gravitational shielding, 3-2) at the Seyfert which then won't shrink easily.
Luminous radio-loud quasars tend to be found in richer environments, and this tendency seems to increase dramatically for redshifts larger than z=0.343.
Above it is mentioned (5-3) that it may be logical that radio loud quasars are 50% of the QSO population at the high-luminosity end of the population. Thus radio loud quasars will also be more abundant at larger redshifts, for they won't be seen at large redshifts if they are not luminous enough. It was also argued that the radio loud quasars will be found in environments where a lot of material is assembled, i.e. a lot of galaxies come together (5-3). Thus it may be logical that radio loud quasars tend to be found in richer environments for they (may) need richer environments to become radio loud. One then may wonder about the absence of radio quiet QSOs in rich clusters, but this arguing about radio-loud QSOs concerns (more) the high-z QSOs.
One may argue with the here proposed radio loud model that every high-luminosity QSO should have radio loud activity, because in every high-luminosity QSO a big heavy matter core exists.
This may not be so, high-luminosity may be caused by many relatively small objects (5-1) orbiting a central region (with no (very) big massive central object). And also: if all QSOs do have a very massive central object then this object may have a very thick mantle that does not break easily (into radio loud activity).
Big bang astronomers think there are more radio sources at larger distances (or large z values) than there are locally43. Larger amounts of concentrated heaps of matter may be found further away (from us) in the Universe because our (Great) Chappell (5-4) may be in a certain (young/early) evolutionary state with galaxies (still) spread out over a relatively large region of space.
But also: with tired light redshift instead of expansion redshift (and without “relativity calculation” of (z-)distances, 5-1) one may get that the distances at large distances are much bigger than expected so far.
Z = 4, for instance, is about 10 billion lightyears away with the relativistic redshift,
i.e. d=cz(1 + z/2)/H(1+ z)2 for a flat universe8 and with a Hubble constant of 50 kilometers per second per megaparsec, but it may become 78 billion lightyears with the tired light concept, i.e. d=cz/H.
[June 2004: Right now big bang astronomers place an object with a redshift z=3.2 at a distance of 11.5 billion big bang light years182 and an object of z=0.3 is placed by them at a 3.5 billion big bang light years184. If the big bang distance of 3.5 billion light-years at z=0.3 (a distance that is likely to be further away with tired light redshift) were correct for tired light too than for an object at z=3.2 extrapolation would bring: 3.2/0.3 multiplied by 3.5 billion years, which brings 37 billion years for z=3.2 (and 47 billion years for z=4). Calculation with d=cz/H with a Hubble constant of 50 kilometers per second per megaparsec brings 63 billion light years for z=3.2.
Actually, the real distance can even be much further away than calculated with a Hubble constant of 50 kilometers per second per megaparsec, because (tired light) redshift by ether/gravity may be higher within our (super)cluster than in inter(super)cluster space (1-2, 5-1). End June 2004]
Thus the space density of radio sources at larger distances may be less than expected (by big bang astronomers) so far.
(In 5-4 I reason that quasars may be much more nearby than conventional science thinks right now. With tired light redshift and gravitational redshift both may be true, 5-4.)
[March 2004: In 1998 it was measured that Type Ia supernovae were further away then expected. Within big bang cosmology this is now explained with an accelerated expansion of the Universe because of so-called dark energy. It is much easier explained by tired light, which places galaxies in the universe further away. End March 2004]
[June 2004: Assuming that the relative amounts of hot gas and dark matter should be the same for every cluster big bang astronomers have derived distances for galaxy clusters that “show the expansion of the universe was first decelerating, and it began to accelerate about six billion (big bang light) years ago”. The observations agreed with observations of distant supernovae and are completely independent of the supernova technique122. The astronomers just measured that also other objects with a certain redshift are further away than expected, which is argued in this chapter and in 4-4.
It is just another confirmation that the big bang theory has problems that can only be solved with weird concepts like dark energy and inflation (the most popular inflation models predict much smaller temperature variations in the observed Cosmic Microwave Background than those seen in new observations of the CMB134). End June 2004]
(In contrast to the QSO population, the space density of BL Lac objects does not appear to increase with redshift, and seems in fact to decline43. BL Lacs may be young/early AGN objects (5-3) which then may explain why they are relatively more numerous in our young/early type (Great) Chappell (5-4).)
In the last few years more and more evidence accumulates concerning tenuous gas clouds in intergalactic space. Radio loud activity producing HII and electrons may explain Warm-Hot Intergalactic Medium (WHIM).
The luminosity functions of galaxies, clusters of galaxies, QSOs and Seyferts all have the same shape, see Fig. 5-3-II.
Figure 5-3-II. The luminosity functions of galaxies8, clusters of galaxies8, QSOs43 and Seyferts43 all have the same shape.
With galaxies and clusters of galaxies transforming into AGNs (or: being progenitors of AGNs) this is, of course, no surprise. Studying such luminosity functions in detail may tell us something about the AGN chain, i.e. how certain AGNs evolve from galaxies/clusters and vice versa and how certain AGNs evolve from other AGNs.
After FR II radio loud activity a quasar may become radio quiet again. Thus it may be that Broad Absorption Line (BAL) clouds originate from (recombined) HII and electrons ejected by the FR II jets. It would explain the high ejecting velocities (up to 0.1 c) of BALs. It would also explain the tests that show that the covering factor for BALs seems to be low43.
BALs are only found in the spectra of radio-quiet QSOs, never in the spectra of strong radio sources43. If BALs are the products of FR II radio loudness then we won't see them in edge-on radio loud QSOs . Though perhaps when the radio loud QSO has rotated (from face-on to edge-on) and then bursts again, perhaps one day such an example may be found, i.e. a radio loud FR II or I AGN with BALs. Perhaps they already have been found. While BALs or not seen in radio-loud objects, there have been some indications that narrow CIV absorption features occur close to the emission-line redshift in radio-loud QSOs with a rate of incidence higher than expected if these systems arise in unrelated foreground objects43. This may be because the electrons of carbon are not that easily stripped of as the hydrogen electron during radio loud activity.
Perhaps face-on radio loud QSOs can't be seen if they show up as OVVs (5-3).
Another reason may be: perhaps FR II ejections rarely repeat in the same direction. Or: by the time electrons and HII have recombined to produce BALs radio loud activity has stopped (and we see a radio quiet QSO). If FR II bursts happen more than once in a certain direction, then during that second (or third/fourth) time radio loud activity may cause the (“empty”) QSO to vanish from sight.
Seyfert 2s may be progenitors of Seyfert 1s which may be progenitors of radio-quiet QSOs. BALs also may only be found in radio-quiet QSOs when BALs are originated by Seyfert 2s (5-1).
Some absorption lines are detected at redshifts slightly larger than the emission line redshift of the quasar. The inferred relative velocities of such systems are typically around 3000 km/s or lower than that. This may be because of infalling hydrogen clouds (which may or may not have been ejected earlier).
Heavy-element (or “metal-line”, or Type C absorption) systems are not associated with quasars because they feature narrow lines of metals. According to conventional astronomy elements heavier than hydrogen and helium are only created in stars, therefore heavy-elements can't be associated with quasars.
With the here described AGN model there can be metals though and thus quasars can be tied to the heavy-element systems, which then may suggest that FR II bursts can be repeated more than once in the same direction, for heavy-element systems can be found in numbers of 3 or 4, with redshifts conspicuously close to each other. (Edge-on such systems may not be seen, for the radio loud radiation output by synchrotron emission and thermal bremsstrahlung has stopped.) Though perhaps the multiple heavy-element systems are better explained with ionization cones of Seyfert 2s (5-1).
There are some claims that metals in heavy-element systems are slightly underabundant relative to solar values43. And (5-3): in some Lyα-forest systems high inferred neutral-H column densities and absence of metal lines imply that metals are underabundant relative to solar values43. With (almost “pure”) hydrogen produced by radio loud activity this is not a problem (as it is in big bang astronomy).
Metals in absorption clouds far away from luminous material (stars), a problem for current astronomy too43, are also easily explained by radio loud activity, because radio loud activity may not produce completely “pure” hydrogen (5-3), or because the intergalactic medium (in an infinite universe) may be contaminated with metals everywhere.
The intergalactic medium is likely to have a high level of ionization43. This too then may be explained with radio loud activity: the streams of elements poured out by radio loud activity may be likely to be stripped of their electrons.
One may reason that if those heavy-element systems are ejected by radio loud activity one should see a P Cygni feature as with BALs, but if the system is very far away from the quasar then the expanding P Cygni feature won't show up anymore.
Part of the lower redshift of the heavy-metal system relative to the emission line redshift of the QSO may be Doppler shift because the heavy-metal system may be moving towards us with high speed.
Perhaps that the matter created by radio loud activity can be divided in:
One may wonder in what magnitude different particles produced by radio loud activity may separate from each other, for instance: protons may have different velocities than heavy elements, electrons may have different velocities than ions.
It may be more likely, though, that particles all have about the same velocity the moment they are thrown out of the AGN, but that different particles are slowed down in different ways by inertial gravity forces (3-2, 5-2, 7-1). Thus perhaps electrons may be slowed down most strongly, followed by protons and iron then may be slowed down relatively slow (of course, the intergalactic (baryonic) medium may play a role too).
Perhaps this can lead to some clues concerning the different kinds of absorption systems we observe.
QSOs that are very far away give the opportunity to study the chemical compositions of very far away galaxies by studying the absorption lines of such galaxies that are in the line of sight between us and the far away QSO. Recently Prochaska and his colleagues58 found a surprisingly high concentration of heavy elements (like lead) in such a galaxy, with ratios of elements to each other similar to that in our own galaxy. The galaxy is at a distance of 12 billion lightyears (i.e. 12 billion “big bang” light years). In an infinite universe high concentrations of heavy elements at such distances would, of course, be no surprise at all.
Blazars may indeed be the face-on counterparts of FR I and II radio loud AGNs as suggested in today's conventional science43.
If radio loud activity produces HII and electrons as suggested in 5-2 then a combination of thermal bremsstrahlung and synchrotron radiation may explain BL Lacertae objects as suggested in Fig. 5-3-III.
Figure 5-3-III. Radio optical spectrum of the BL Lacertae object OJ 287.
(Radio spectra of compact AGN sources are usually flat. Perhaps (optically thick) thermal bremsstrahlung can explain this.)
[June 2004: A lot of information here comes from Peterson's book43, which is from 1997. It was not until the late 1990's that within big bang cosmology general consensus formed that the blazar's gamma ray emission is largely due to inverse Compton scattering, because blazar's gamma ray jets seem to be more tightly bound than their radio jets195. So jets may not be the way of explaining high energy radiation from blazars nor the big bang explanation with Compton scattering, as reasoned hereafter. End June 2004]
Perhaps other ways of looking at blazars are possible too.
BL Lac objects main characteristic is a lack of spectral lines which is the great puzzle about the BL Lac objects, but also the strong and fast variability (linked with polarization) is puzzling.
Perhaps BL Lac objects are old g-galaxies that have shrunk and (partly) merged without (or little) hydrogen fuelling the old g-galaxy. Thus huge and compact merged objects with heavy elements may have started glowing by gravitational contraction, so strong that enormous temperatures are reached, thus producing such an enormous radiation pressure that no hydrogen can come near to the AGN core, i.e. a Broad Line Region won't be formed, simply because the atoms are blown away, thus no spectral lines can be expected (or only very faint ones).
The compact cores with heavy elements thus may reach very high temperatures, which may explain why BL Lacs are the AGNs with the hottest radiation. Perhaps that, as mentioned in 5-1 and 5-3, other AGNs do get fuelled with hydrogen, thus building up hydrogen (or helium) layers around their hot objects (like white dwarfs, 5-1). This hydrogen may cause the (secondary) radiation to be less hot than in the case of BL Lacs.
With no infalling gas no starburst region is formed. A starburst region surrounding a compact AGN source “pulls” at the compact source, or rather: the starburst region is a gravitational shield (5-1) for the compact source.
Hence if BL Lacs have no starburst region then this may result in stronger gravitational contraction of the objects in the BL Lacs, which too may account for hotter objects in BL Lacs.
When hydrogen is blown away from the BL Lac core then this hydrogen may be blown into the host galaxy which then may become relatively luminous. This may be the reason why BL Lac objects have the highest absolute B magnitudes (5-3).
A number of BL Lac objects are found in clusters of galaxies, indirect evidence that they are also galaxies8. Perhaps rather: (very) old galaxies (or rather: young AGN systems in old galaxies).
Such BL Lacs may also be (old) g-galaxies, though. For instance as mentioned in 4-1: our Galaxy, together with the smaller galaxies within 250 kpc, may be/become a g-galaxy too.
A cluster may have been shrinking for a long time, meanwhile sucking up (and “burning” away) the hydrogen within the region surrounding the cluster. In clusters, or at least certain clusters (i.e. clusters that are not fed by streams of hydrogen that, for instance, have been ejected by radio loud activity), galaxies/g-galaxies may not be able to attract much hydrogen, which may cause them to transform in BL Lac objects.
If the inner region of a BL Lac is (the center of) an old galaxy or g-galaxy that has shrunk (and merged) very strongly then the inner region of the BL Lac that produces the continuum radiation may be very small and thus the inner region may be obscured/microlensed quickly and strongly by other more outward laying regions (i.e. dark matter objects) that orbit the BL Lac core, i.e. inner region.
But also: a small inner region with many objects that orbit the very center of the inner region (“irregularly”, with old objects/galaxies having old peculiar velocities, see Fig. 4-1-I) may show strong variability (with all kind of objects having different temperatures and fluxes that orbit “irregularly”, so no or hardly periodicity in the variability will be found).
When the “big ball” of the BL Lac has contracted/shrunk very strongly then the rotation of the “big ball” may be relatively fast.
Thus very strong and very fast variability may be expected with BL Lacs.
BL Lacertae itself sometimes changes its optical emission by a factor 20. In an article37 about gravitational microlensing a star changed its luminosity by a factor 20 (by microlensing) too, which may make microlensing a serious candidate for at least parts of the variability of BL Lac objects (and AGNs in general). (Also a group of objects, like an old galaxy, can cause microlensing.)
As mentioned in 5-1: a polarized spectrum can result from scattering or reflection of the AGN continuum, either by dust or by free electrons43.
When other dark matter objects within the inner BL Lac region orbit the BL Lac core, then such orbiting objects may have much dust surrounding them, which may explain the high polarization of BL Lacs54. Dust may be a small chance though in BL Lacs, because it gets sublimated (though perhaps it is continuously produced by (many) clashing dark matter objects, which are particularly with many the moment they pass as a group in front of the BL Lac core, thus obscuring or microlensing; such a group (for instance an old g-galaxy) may also (partly) shield dust from sublimating radiation of the core; and: can there be dust consisting of much heavier elements than silicate/graphite with a higher sublimation temperature?).
Also: when not much outboard (4-4) hydrogen is attracted because there is little outboard hydrogen available then there (probably) may be relatively much outboard dust going to the BL Lac. And: where hydrogen is blown away by the compact source perhaps (larger) dust particles do go to the compact source (where they will be sublimated). (Dust is constantly being fed into our Solar System. Dust particles smaller than 1 μm are blown out of the Solar System by radiation pressure. Larger dust particles spiral towards the Sun by the Poynting-Robertson effect8. Perhaps BL Lacs can be constantly fed by dust too.)
Perhaps polarization is most likely caused by electrons (5-1). Where ions get blown away from the AGN core, electrons may fall into the core, which may produce the strong polarization.
And: if pulsar activity can cause the outflow of electrons (6-1) then pulsars in BL Lacs (being assemblages of many old dark matter objects) may cause presence of electrons in BL Lacs as well.
(Of course, polarization may also be the result of both dust and electrons.)
BL Lac objects don't have the high z values as quasars. Perhaps only relatively small AGNs can become BL Lac objects. Perhaps bigger potential BL Lac objects always attract such big amounts of hydrogen and/or dust that they will show other AGN features, for instance a Broad Line Region (5-1). Some potential BL Lac objects thus may become quasars.
[June 2004: Recently big bang astronomers spotted Q0906+6930, a radio loud QSO, that also can be typed as a gamma-“blazar”193, with a redshift of 5.5. They think that they spotted a black hole so massive that it's more than 10 billion times the mass of our sun and or stymied about how a black hole could have gotten so big so fast (i.e. one billion years after the big bang)194.
An infinite universe model doesn't have no problem at all finding enormous AGNs at large distances (because the “big balls” can be enormous, 5-1, but also because Q0906+6930 may be a cluster of QSOs/galaxies, 5-1).
Because the QSO is enormous big it is not surprising that the compact source has many objects that are extremely hot, which then can account for the gamma rays, and, regarding it is so big, it is also not surprising that it has by far the highest radio loudness of any QSO with z larger than z=5193 (the biggest “blazar” so far, distant “blazars” seem to dominate the gamma-ray sky194, see also 4-2).
I wonder if Q0906+6930 can be an example of a (once a) BL Lacertae object that has turned itself into a QSO, i.e. perhaps that Q0906+6930 once had no BLR while radiating enormous fluxes of extremely high energy radiation. End June 2004]
Surrounding the hot inner core there may be very many dark matter objects (like our Earth) with many different low temperatures like warm (infrared) to low (microwaves) to very low (radio waves) temperatures (so no black body curve though it is blackbody radiation). Such (groups of) dark matter objects may cause variability (by obscuring/microlensing) of hotter radiation, and radiate themselves at lower wavelengths (also pulsars may play a role, 5-1).
But (the above described) electrons (5-3) may also bring (much of the) low temperature radiation by synchrotron radiation or/and free-free emission.
Only 1% or so of optically bright quasars have polarizations greater than 3% (up to 35%). The highly polarized quasars are compact radio sources, have flat radio spectra and steep optical ones, and exhibit rapid (days to years), large-amplitude variability at optical wavelengths. Hence, high-polarization quasars share many characteristics with BL Lac objects8. This may favour the above described “big-ball”/little-hydrogen BL Lac model (5-3) relative to the earlier mentioned face-on/radio-loud BL Lac model (5-3).
OVVs may be different than BL Lacs because in OVVs (a little more) hydrogen may have fuelled the AGN, leading to (stronger) emission and absorption lines in OVV spectra.
OVVs have higher redshifts, perhaps because of the evolutionary state of the region in which we are situated (= our Chappell, 5-4). Perhaps there is not enough hydrogen in nearby intergalactic space for BL Lacs to (have) become OVVs. And: OVVs may be seen at bigger distances because they are fuelled with hydrogen and thus have bigger fluxes.
Does one may get:
BL Lacs –› less gas –› higher temperatures/less luminous
OVVs –› more gas –› lower temperatures/more luminous
One may wonder about the here suggested very high black body temperatures of BL Lac objects, especially in relation to temperatures that lead to radio loud activity. Surface temperatures around 1012 K may be around the highest possible, thus bringing high-energy radiation of BL Lacs. Even much higher temperatures (with very high pressures) may exist in AGN compact cores with very thick mantles, preceding radio loud activity (5-1, 5-2).
If the “big-ball”/little-hydrogen BL Lac concept (5-3) is right then at a certain moment the BL Lac may have radiated away so much energy that the radiation pressure becomes less. After that the BL Lac may transform (by “allowing” hydrogen to fall in) into a radio quiet AGN with a Broad Line Region, like a Seyfert 1 or a radio quiet QSO.
But also: if dark matter objects do fall into the BL Lac core then the objects in the core may merge and contract so strongly that the BL Lac becomes radio loud, thus turning into a radio loud QSO or a radio galaxy. (Perhaps one day a radio-loud BL Lac will be discovered.) [July 2004: A radio-loud AGN that has much BL Lac characteristics has been discovered, (5-3). Perhaps the object is an example of a BL Lac that has turned itself into a (radio loud) QSO. End July 2004]
Perhaps that BL Lacs show quantization (Padovani/Giommi59: Figure 2, peaks at z=.2-.3, .6 and .9) like quasars (see hereafter at Quantization of quasars).
Arp too has found that BL Lacs show the same redshift quantization as quasars29.
This quantization may be explained the same way the quantization of quasars may be explained (5-4).
Still, of course, BL Lacs may be the face-on counterparts of FR I sources (and OVVs the face-on counterparts of FR II sources) as thought right now in conventional science, though this concept has problems43.
Arp argues that quasars are quantized: certain numbers of quasars are found at certain redshifts29. Conspicuous high numbers of quasars have been found at z= .061, .30, .60, .91, 1.41, 1.96, etc., according to K.G. Karlsson's formula (1 + z2)/(1 + z1) = 1.23.
If quasars descend from (shrinking) galaxies or g-galaxies (4-1) or even superclusters, then quasars represent, in a way, a certain piece of space in the universe. Thus perhaps the universe can be divided in regions, see Fig. 5-4-I (see also 5-4).
Of course Fig. 5-4-I is only 2-dimensional. If you want to know how it works 3-dimensional: buy marbles (and you will find that you can choose between 2 or 3 different layers of marbles).
I will only go briefly in to this, for working this out probably takes years of research. I only want to show an example of how quasar quantization may be caused in a very simple way, so that quasar quantization can be something that no longer has to be denied (as right now in conventional science), because it can be explained very easily. Again: the example I give is just a simple example, probably the real situation is (much) different.
Figure 5-4-I. Regions in space explaining quasar quantization.
Imagine that the Earth is in the small(est) (dark) spot in the exact center of Fig 5-4-I. You see 19 of those small spots in a larger circle. Imagine that the crossing time of one small(est) spot is Δz=0.06 light years. This would make the distance from the Earth to the center of the bigger circles left and right Δz=0.3 light years and from the Earth to the bigger circles one more circle further Δz=0.6 light years, and from the Earth to the center of the biggest 6 circles surrounding the biggest inner circle Δz=0.9 light years.
Imagine that the smallest circles are small clusters (or rather: certain regions, 5-4) and the bigger circles are bigger clusters and the biggest circles are “a class” bigger clusters.
Universal engines (4-1) of different magnitudes are likely to end up in the center of the circles/clusters (i.e. regions). Quasars originating from universal engines (5-1) would thus be found at certain distances and thus the redshifts of quasars can be quantized. Thus quasars may be old galaxies or g-galaxies that have shrunk very much and gone the center of a certain region, which may make the redshifts of quasars quantized.
[June 2003: This region related quantization, or: region redshift quantization, may only be part of the reason of quasar redshift quantization. The other part may come from the gravitational redshift of quasars that is discussed hereafter (5-4). End June 2003]
There is a difference between radio quasars redshifts in the Right Ascension = 0 hour region (peaks at .30, .60, .96, 1.41, 1.96) relative to the Right Ascension = 12 hour region (peaks at .34, .65, 1.02, 1.48, 2.05)29. Perhaps this tells us something about the velocity of our Galaxy, Local Group or Local Supercluster relative to “the rest of the Universe”. (Considering “our peculiar velocity” relative to “the rest of the Universe” may be possible (too) by studying the dipole moment of the cosmic background radiation, 4-2.)
[February 2004: Perhaps it can also tell us something about the position of our Galaxy in Fig. 5-4-I, i.e. of course our Galaxy may not be in the exact center of the 19 small(est) circles in Fig. 5-4-I. End February 2004]
Arp29 writes about a problem concerning peculiar velocities of galaxy clusters. A number of observers have reported about galaxy clusters having peculiar velocities of from 1000 to 2000 km/s. If this were true, Arp reasons, then the whole lower third of the Hubble diagram, with its small dispersion from the theoretical line, would blow up as indicated in Fig. 5-4-II.
Figure 5-4-II. A Hubble diagram (redshift versus apparent magnitude) for clusters of galaxies. The dashed lines show the effect that nearby peculiar velocities of 1000 to 2000 km/s have on the diagram.
(this picture is taken from Arp29).
According to Fig. 5-4-I clusters of galaxies will have bigger peculiar velocities if they are further away in bigger regions in space (= chappells, 5-4). Clusters nearby will have lower peculiar velocities.
In April 2003 my eye I fell on a picture in the cosmological book by Harrison6 that is so much like Fig. 5-4-I that I like to show it here:
Figure 5-4-III. A universe of stars clustered into galaxies and of galaxies clustered into larger systems, which in turn are clustered into yet larger systems, and so on, indefinitely, as conceived by Immanuel Kant and Johann Lambert in the eighteenth century.
(this picture is taken from Harrison6).
Of course, Fig. 5-4-III is, in the end, only a picture of how galaxies, clusters and superclusters are seen right now by conventional science, but still, I liked the picture by Kant and Lambert, as I liked to read about all kind of people in Harrison's book who have thought about infinite universes.
If quasars can descend from galaxies and/or g-galaxies then one would expect galaxies and clusters to be quantized too. In 1990 astronomers measured many galaxies in a small field and found clumping of redshifts with main peaks around z= .06 and z= .3029, the first two peaks of the redshifts for quasars.
[June 2003: For decades Arp has argued that high redshift objects interact with low redshift objects29, 72. He may be right (though I doubt it).
In 6-2 it is argued that white dwarfs are not “degenerate gas” objects. Instead they are presented as objects consisting of very heavy cores with heavy elements (with relatively little or no gas surrounding the heavy element core). White dwarfs, being very compact, thus have high gravitational redshift (measured gravitational redshifts of white dwarfs range from 20 to 90 km/s8).
It is also argued in 6-2 that the excess redshift of bright blue stars (in the order of 20 - 30 km/s29) too is due to big cores of heavy elements surrounded by a lot of gas.
(Bright blue stars have relatively more gas than white dwarfs, which makes the redshifts of bright blue stars smaller then the redshifts of white dwarfs.)
Quasars may have an extremely big heavy metal core (5-2) and thus may cause extremely strong gravitational redshift.
When old galaxies or old g-galaxies turn into extremely concentrated hydrogen deficient assemblages of old blackened stars (4-1) then the gravitational redshift of such assemblages of many objects may become extremely strong. Part of the redshift of extremely compact assemblages of many objects therefore may be caused by gravitational redshift.
When AGNs descend from old galaxies or old g-galaxies (5-1) then part of the redshift of many AGNs (as well as other objects that originate from old galaxies or old g-galaxies, as may be the case with NGC 7603B, 5-4) may be due to gravitational redshift.
(Quasar redshift being due to gravitational redshift has been argued before by conventional science71.)
In 5-1 it is argued that there is a reason why the Broad (Emission) Line Regions (BLRs) of AGNs have physical characteristics remarkably similar to the photoionized extended envelopes of stars such as red giants and supergiants: because AGNs have a compact source, a “big ball”, that consists of many heavy element cores. This “big ball” (consisting of many smaller balls/objects) may be surrounded by a gas mantle (BLR) that acts as the photoionized extended envelopes of red giants and supergiants.
Such “big balls” may show enormous gravitational forces and hence may produce extremely strong gravitational redshift. Thus quasars, having very strong concentrated “big balls” may have very large gravitational redshift (much larger than the gravitational redshift by bright blue stars and white dwarfs) and thus discordant redshift may be explained. In other words: (many) quasars may be much more nearby than expected so far (by conventional science). (In 5-3 I reason that quasars may be much further away than conventional science thinks right now. With tired light redshift and gravitational redshift both may be true, 5-4.)
[October 2003: Some quasars may be relatively small while very compact and relatively close to us, having low tired light redshift and high gravitational redshift, and some quasars may be relatively big while less compact, having high tired light redshift and low gravitational redshift. Perhaps that big quasars are often or always found far away and not nearby, because of the state of our Chappell (5-4). Therefore big quasars with low tired light redshift combined with low gravitational redshift may be unlikely.
High tired light redshift and high gravitational redshift may be something unlikely too when such quasars are too small to be seen at very large distances. But perhaps there is also the possibility that very large quasars can be so compact that they have high gravitational redshift.
With many smaller objects orbiting in the compact central sources of quasars/AGNs those compact central sources may have all kind of magnitudes and thus also very large magnitudes (the central compact sources of AGNs may be much larger then expected by their light flux variations so far, 5-1); this in contrast with one single compact object like a black hole or a very large star.
Conventional scientists doubt the gravitational redshift by quasars because the “fuzz” surrounding certain quasars is of the same redshift as the quasars. Mitchell has opposed this argumentation by saying that “reflection” of quasar radiation from surrounding dust may cause the fuzz75.
Actually, if it turns out that there is no gravitational redshift in the case of quasars then the on this website suggested AGN model does not have a problem. On the other hand: on this website quasars are considered to be AGN types with strongly concentrated compact sources, so one may expect a certain gravitational redshift.
One may compare big/small quasars having high or low gravitational redshift with stars. Both big and small stars can have a big heavy element core (high gravitational redshift) or a small heavy element core (low gravitational redshift) relative to the amount of surrounding gas (6-2). Quasars can have a large “big ball” (5-1) (big quasar) or a small “big ball” (small quasar) and the more concentrated the masses (less space between the objects) in the “big ball” the higher the gravitational redshift.
When quasars of high redshift are close to a galaxy with low redshift and clustering around the galaxy then this may mean that the galaxy by coincidence lies in front of a cluster of quasars (with high tired light redshift) far away or it may mean that the quasars (with high gravitational redshift) are close to the galaxy.
If the quasars have high gravitational redshift then this may mean that the quasars are shrunken universal engines slowly moving to the low redshift galaxy because clusters of universal engines shrink (4-1). But perhaps there is also the possibility that the quasars are old universal engines that have been thrown out of the galaxy (5-1). Such universal engines then may contract relatively fast because the gravitational shielding (3-2) in the low redshift galaxy has stopped, thus developing quasar features where they did not have quasar features while they were still in the low redshift galaxy. End October 2003]
If very strong gravitational redshift exists then objects with different redshifts can be at the same distance, as may be the case in the following image of the Seyfert 1 galaxy NGC 7603 and its smaller companion NGC 7603B, taken by M. López-Corredoira and C. Gutiérrez73 in 2002.
Figure 5-4-IV. NGC 7603 (z = 0.029) and its companion NGC 7603B (object 1, z = 0.057) are apparently connected by a luminous filament.
Figure 5-4-V. In the luminous filament (z = 0.030 ± 0.001) there are two compact broad emission line objects: object 2 (z = 0.243) and object 3 (z = 0.391).
López-Corredoira and Gutiérrez73 took spectra of the two knots imbedded in the luminous filament and found two compact, broad emission line objects with redshifts z = .243 (object 2) and z = .391 (object 3).
NGC 7603B (object 1) may originate from a hydrogen deficient galaxy or g-galaxy that may have been fuelled (and may still be fuelled: the luminous filament) with gas from NGC 7603. When AGNs originate from old hydrogen deficient galaxies or g-galaxies that have shrunk to spherical or disk shaped objects (consisting of old blackened stars or rather: dark matter objects) that get fuelled by hydrogen (5-1) then it may be a matter of time before a Broad Line Region in NGC 7603B (i.e. broad emission lines) shows up.
Thus NGC 7603B may be a “ball” of dark matter objects that has shrunk very much and so it may not be a coincidence that NGC 7603B is smaller than NGC 7603 and (appears to be) more spherical (because it is in a further “shrunk” state, see also 4-3).
The smaller quasar like objects 2 and 3 may be in an even further “shrunk” state and therefore may have even higher redshifts (in the case they turn out to be part of the system indeed, which would make them quasars with high gravitational redshift and low tired light redshift, 5-4). Because of being in a further “AGN evolutionary state” a Broad Line Region may have showed up in objects 2 and 3, which then may explain the by López-Corredoira and Gutiérrez measured broad emission lines73.
With Seyfert NGC 7603 having the same redshift (.029) as the luminous filament (.030 ± .001) NGC 7603 may be an example of an AGN that has not become so strongly concentrated/shrunk (yet) that light is strongly redshifted by gravitational redshift. The fact that NGC 7603 is more a disk system rather than a spherical system may be an indication for this “not much shrunk yet” state (4-3, 5-3).
When the redshift of the luminous filament turns out to be a little higher than the redshift of NGC 7603 then NGC 7603B may be closer to us than NGC 7603 and then the gas may be blueshifted because of its velocity from NGC 7603 to NGC 7603B (which would mean that NGC 7603 may be a little redshifted by gravitational redshift too, i.e. when the blueshift by the velocity of the gas would be higher han .001).
If the light in the luminous filament is blueshifted then perhaps small redshift variations can be found in the luminous filament due to different velocities of the gas in the filament while moving from NGC 7603 to NGC 7603B.
If gravitational redshift causes part of the redshift of NGC 7603B then the redshift of the outward parts of NGC 7603B may be lower than the redshift of light coming from the nucleus of NGC 7603B. It may be interesting to try and measure this.
If the 4 objects of the NGC 7603 system are all part of one interacting system then the NGC 7603 may be likely to be a g-galaxy as described in 4-1 in order to be a stable system. This may mean that the system may have dynamics as shown in Fig. 5-4-VI.
Figure 5-4-VI. Possible dynamics in the NGC 7603 system.
Astronomical systems may have certain dynamics in order to become stable and enduring (4-1). Directions of rotation and directions of orbiting may have to be the same in order to have a stable system (7-1). When the NGC 7603 system is a g-galaxy that is seen face-on then all the 4 objects may have sidereal rotation as indicated in Fig. 5-4-VI with the curled arrows in NGC 7603 and NGC 7603B. And the objects 2 and 3 may be orbiting NGC 7603B and NGC 7603 respectively with the same direction of orbiting as NGC 7603 and NGC 7603B are rotating around their axes, also as indicated in Fig. 5-4-VI. If so then NCG 7603 and NGC 7603B are likely to orbit each other in the same direction as well (not shown in Fig. 5-4-VI).
The Sun is rotating faster around its axis than the planets are orbiting the Sun and the nucleus of our Galaxy may be rotating faster than the spiral arms (4-3). This also may be a necessity for astronomical systems to be stable. Thus object 3 may orbit NGC 7603 slower than NGC 7603 is rotating around its axis, which then may explain why we see gas moving to object 3 from object 3's right side in Fig. 5-4-VI.
The curve in the luminous filament may be explained by objects 2 and 3 respectively orbiting NGC 7603B and NGC 7603 as indicated in Fig. 5-4-VI.
Perhaps it is possible to verify this way of looking at the dynamics of the NGC 7603 system in the same way the orbiting directions of galaxies were measured recently with the Chandra X-ray Observatory30: by imaging the “tail” a galaxy gets by moving through intercluster gas. Object 3 may show a gas tail at its north-west, though perhaps it is hard to find a tail for object 3 when it is fuelled with much gas coming from the right side. It may be more likely that object 2 shows a gas tail at its south-west side (though here also is the problem with gas that may be more abundant at the north-west side of object 2 when object 2 orbits NGC 7603B slower than NGC 7603B rotates around its axis).
One may wonder about quasars orbiting NGC 7603 at such relatively short distances. In 3-2 it is argued that with pushing gravity high-density objects, like the X-ray pulsar Centaurus X-3, may orbit their companions at relatively short distances.
When quasars descend from shrunken galaxies or g-galaxies as advocated on this website (5-1) then they are extremely compact objects and then quasars may orbit companions at relatively close distances.
Arp, Burbidge, Chu et al (2002)28 argue that quasars may be as near as the starburst/AGN galaxy NGC 3628. In Fig. 5-4-VII conspicuous many QSOs (8) and objects that are suspected to turn out to be QSOs (7) are close to the main galaxy NGC 3626.
Figure 5-4-VII. The black rectangle in the center of dashed line is neutral hydrogen (HI). The main galaxy NGC 3628 is embedded in the rectangle. Catalogued quasars are annotated with their redshift values. Objects marked with a circled X are probable quasars plus F, a possible quasar (picture copied from the article by Arp, Burbidge, Chu et al28).
If the circled X objects turn out to be quasars indeed then we see 5 pairs of quasars: E and D; B and z = 1.75; z = .995 and z = 2.15; z = .408 and z = 2.43; C and z = .981.
If we take a look at our Local Group we also see pairs, but then pairs of galaxies, like Leo I and II, LMC and SMC, Sculptor and Fornax, Draco and Ursa Minor, NGC 185 and NGC 147, NGC 205 and M32.
Perhaps that later on those galaxy pairs become quasars when the galaxies shrink and concentrate. [July 2004: I guess the smaller galaxies surrounding the Milky Way rather will be cannibalized by the Milky Way. Still, the pairs of galaxies in our Local Group do show that galaxies may be likely to come in pairs. End July 2004]
In Fig. 5-4-VII we see 4 objects that lie in a certain position with respect to 4 pairs, i.e. with the line between the more distant objects and the pairs (more or less) perpendicular to the line that connects the pairs: F with respect to E/D; A with respect to B/1.75; z = 1.94 with respect to .408/2.43; z = 2.06 with respect to .995/2.15. They form 4 “T-bones”.
Only one object (z = 1.46) is positioned far from the rest (though it may be seen as being in a system with z=.981/C; a system that more or less may have been ripped apart because of gravitational forces by the main galaxy NGC 3628 and other quasars).
Such T-bones may be 2-to-1 systems (4-3). If quasars descend from galaxies then our Local Group may be interesting in an other way. Both the top view of our Local Group as well as the side view of our Local Group show a T-bone: our Galaxy versus M31/M33. Thus perhaps that in the very far future our Galaxy and M31/M33 may have shrunk very much and may have come to lie as a T-bone 2-to-1 quasar system around a main galaxy as in Fig. 5-4-VII.
Perhaps that the small galaxies of our Local Group are not big enough to become quasars, but also: perhaps they do become quasars and perhaps that much later (when the quasar states of the smaller galaxies have vanished) our Galaxy and M31 and M33, being bigger, become quasars.
The redshift quantization of quasars (5-4) may be due to galaxies or g-galaxies being in certain regions of space (5-4) (thus their distances may cause certain quantized amounts of tired light redshift). But also: the redshift quantization of quasars may be due to galaxies or g-galaxies (that later shrink into quasars) being quantized with respect to the amounts of mass those galaxies or g-galaxies have (thus their quantized amounts of mass cause certain quantized amounts of gravitational redshift, 5-4) or/and: galaxies or g-galaxies may be quantized with respect to their “evolutionary state” (see hereafter at Chappells). Thus, their “shrunk” or “compact big ball” state may cause certain quantized amounts of gravitational redshift. End June 2003]
In Fig. 5-4-I and 5-4-III one can see that there may be regions in space with certain (luminous/nonluminous) mass assemblages. Small regions that, together with a number of other small regions, are part of a larger region that, together with a number of other larger regions, etc.
I call such regions chappells, after Dr. John E. Chappell, Jr., who founded and directed the Natural Philosophy Alliance1.
There may be chappells in all kind of magnitudes, parallel with clusters that may exist in larger and larger (super)clusters. I call the region of space that is connected to our Local Group our Local Chappell, the region that is connected to our Local Supercluster our Local Superchappell and the region that is connected to the Great Attractor the Great Chappell and a region that goes (far) beyond that a Major Chappell.
The space connected to the Hercules cluster I call the Hercules chappell, and the space connected to the Coma cluster the Coma chappell, etc. The space connected to the Hercules supercluster I call the Hercules superchappell, and the space connected to the Coma supercluster the Coma superchappell, etc. Perhaps that quasars with high redshifts (i.e. high tired light redshift, low gravitational redshift, 5-4) can be centers of major chappells.
The region of space connected to our Galaxy I call our Galaxy Chappell, and the region connected to M31 the I call the Andromeda chappell.
Thus there is a difference between, for instance, a supercluster and a superchappell: speaking about a supercluster is addressing a particular assemblage of matter, speaking about a superchappell is addressing a particular region of space.
A chappell is often tied to a particular assemblage of luminous matter, but a chappell may also be a certain region in space without luminous matter but with (perhaps very little) dark matter. Very many little dark matter amounts spread over an enormous big empty region may collect hydrogen and thus (over extremely long times) a large nonluminous void may become a (luminous) supercluster.
[October 2003: Perhaps galaxies originating this way may be the low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies that have been found the last decade.
LSB galaxies are faint blue diffuse galaxies that are deficient in heavy elements. LSB galaxies seem to outnumber the more familiar galaxies. Astronomers so far seem to have been missing them because they contain few stars and are intrinsically dim75. End October 2003] [July 2004: Such galaxies may also be very old galaxies that are at the brink of becoming completely dark. End July 2004]
There is strong evidence that the accretion of cluster galaxies triggers starbursts. A major question for astronomers is that this type of activity declines so rapidly from z= .5 to the “present”. This question may be answered by the state-of-our-Chappell.
The Universe may be homogeneous on extremely large scales, but with all kind of chappells in all kind of magnitudes and (astronomical evolutionary) phases, it is not homogeneous on smaller scales at all. When superclusters (4-1) shrink to g-galaxies (4-1) then there are early type superclusters/g-galaxies and late type superclusters/g-galaxies. Or: certain matter assemblages, like universal engines and g-galaxies, galaxies, clusters and superclusters, in certain regions of space may be in certain “evolutionary states”.
The region within z= .5 may be relatively young (or, at least, be in a certain evolutionary phase) and thus starbursts by accretion of clusters may not occur that much.
But also: with tired light redshift instead of expansion redshift (and no relativity) larger “z-distances” will be much further away than thought so far (5-3). Thus the declination from z= .5 may be an apparent declination.
[June 2004: When radio loud activity by AGNs is the major hydrogen production mechanism in the Universe (5-2) then the environment close to the radio loud AGN may profit most by the production of hydrogen. In other words, a supercluster in a certain chappell may shrink until at a certain point the central region of the supercluster has been accumulating that much matter that AGN radio loud activity starts in the center of the supercluster. This then may fuel a lot of systems within the chappell, which brings new star formation within the (luminous/dark) galaxies/universal engines and (luminous/dark) clusters/g-galaxies within the chappell (in which the supercluster resides but in which a lot of non-luminous dark matter systems too may reside). This way a (super)cluster may slowly shrink and become depleted while every now and then new hydrogen (by AGN radio loud activity) is produced bringing new starbursts. (Though, I rather think that the major amount of hydrogen produced in the Universe comes from the enormous big radio loud quasars and that such hydrogen may be spit out with such an enormous force that the hydrogen flows to other (super)chappells in extremely long journeys through inter(super)cluster/chappell space.)
One thus can imagine that chappells can be in certain states like the seasons we experience: winter (a lot of dark matter/dark galaxies/dark g-galaxies), spring (radio loud activity within the cluster producing hydrogen or hydrogen coming in from intercluster space), summer (star bursts because dark matter gets fuelled by new hydrogen) and fall (stars becoming depleted and blackening). End June 2004]
4 quasars around the famous radio quasar 3C 345, see Fig. 5-4-VII: A (z=.59), B (z=.70), 3C 345 (z=.59), D (z=.63) and E (z=.54)29, may be in a, what I call, quasar system.
Perhaps this can be an example of quasars/AGNs behaving like galaxies/clusters orbiting each other (4-1).
[June 2003: I have come to think different about this, because now I think that quasar redshifts may be due to gravitational redshift too (5-4). Perhaps that gravitational redshift can be differentiated from tired light/distance redshift one day. For instance, gravitational forces by AGNs will have certain effects on the reverberation mapping of AGNs and the widths of the emission lines. Thus perhaps it is possible to differentiate between:
- gravitational redshift (by correlation with, for example, reverberation mapping and/or widths of emission lines)
- distance redshift (by knowing the (distance) redshift of a (only distance) redshift companion)
- Doppler redshift (by subtracting the gravitational redshift and distance redshift) End June 2003]
The upper part of Fig. 5-4-VIII shows the positions and redshifts of the 5 quasars as they are observed in the sky.
Figure 5-4-VIII. Possible example of a quasar system.
If we look at the cross on the line in the lower part of Fig. 5-4-VIII: imagine that that cross is the center of the system. Around this central point 3 systems are orbiting: binary system A/B, 3C 345 and binary system D/E.
The cross then is at a certain distance. If one puts this distance at (tired light/distance) redshift z=.62 and puts, for the sake of simplicity, all 5 quasars at exactly the same distance, i.e. z=.62, then one can figure out a way of how the 5 quasars may have particular orbiting velocities in the quasar system, thus having different Doppler redshifts, accounting for the differences in the observed redshifts of the quasars.
The lower part in Fig. 5-4-VIII shows with arrows how the quasars may orbit each other. For the sake of simplicity it is presumed that all quasars have orbits that are in the plane that is determined by the line-of-sight and the line (perpendicular to the line-of-sight) in the lower part of Fig. 5-4-VIII on which all 5 quasars (are presumed to) lie, i.e. all quasars (only) either move towards us or from us away.
Thus the whole system may be looked at as follows:
The above “calculation” is, of course, very arbitrary.
[February 2004: Also because A and B orbit each other with “discordant dynamics”, see 4-1 where it is argued that astronomical systems may need certain dynamics to be stable systems. End February 2004]
For instance: I took A and B (and also D and E) as binary systems in which the components have the same mass, thus having the same but opposite Doppler redshifts, but this may not be the case if the quasars do not have the same mass, i.e. if A does not have the same mass as B, and if D does not have the same mass as E.
Thus reality concerning the quasar system (if a quasar system) probably is different ( [June 2003: especially when the redshift of quasars is also due to gravitational redshift, 5-4 End June 2003] ), I just liked to show a possible example of a quasar system and a way of looking at such a quasar system, as with this case in Fig. 5-4-VIII, in which we may look “edge-on”, and thus we may not see a “disk”, but a “line” on which the quasars lie.
Velocities like 16,500 km/s are high velocities. Quasars are likely to be compact systems, i.e. high density systems. Such systems may be able to move at high velocities because of relatively small inertial forces by gravity particles (3-2). A normal galaxy, having a much lower density, may not be able to reach such high peculiar velocities.
Perhaps there is quantization in the cosmic background radiation (CBR) restframe (there is according to Tifft27), if parts of the CBR are bound to certain regions/chappells in space which may have certain peculiar velocities (4-2).
The Einstein cross consists of 4 quasars, each with the same z-value, and thus this may be a case of “disk”-clustering where we see “face-on”.
But perhaps the Einstein cross can be explained in another way as well.
When you take the above mentioned marbles (5-4) or if you take fine spherical oranges and you pile them up you will see endless rows of tetrahedrons. If indeed, as mentioned in 5-1, there is AGN clustering, and thus also quasar clustering, one may every now and then expect to see quasars clustering in the shape of a tetrahedron (5-4).
Current conventional science thinks that the Einstein cross is the result of gravitational galaxy lensing. Arp opposes this strongly29.
[June 2004: More and more evidence concerning gravitational lensing comes up lately and therefore I give it quite a good chance that the Einstein cross may be 4 different images of the same object140,141. I am not totally convinced though, I still look at gravitational lensing as something to be sought out further. It may turn out that some of the images that are thought to be multiple images by gravitational lensing are actually two or more quasars, especially because in my way of looking at the Universe one would expect to find some quasar clustering every now and then. RXS J1131-1231 for instance is supposed to show 4 images of the same quasar, but one of image turns out to be one magnitude (a factor of 2.5) brighter than expected. This brighter image very well indeed may be caused by microlensing by a single star (or several stars) within the lensing galaxy, as suggested by big bang astronomers91,185. They may be right, perhaps the 4 quasars at z=0.66 indeed are 1 quasar that is gravitationally lensed by a foreground galaxy at z=0.30. Though very convincing indeed there is still little doubt in me, there still may be a chance that the 4 images are not 4 images of one and the same object. Four different quasars at z=0.66 too would explain one quasar being brighter by a factor of 2.5. End June 2004]
[August 2004: Right now I'm convinced that there is gravitational lensing. This means that there may be many gravitational lenses in the form of dark galaxies or g-galaxies (4-1), lenses that are not luminous. End August 2004]
[May 3 2005: In April 2005 astronomers announced they had found a near perfect “Einstein ring”327. Also measurements concerning quasars seem to confirm gravitational lensing332. End May 3 2005]
Perhaps the 4 quasars (with z=1.70) of the Einstein cross is an example of quasar tetrahedron clustering (see Fig. 5-4-IX).
Figure 5-4-IX. The image of the Einstein cross may be the two-dimensional image of a tetrahedron.
The foreground galaxy (with z=.04) that is in the middle of the 4 quasars (not shown in Fig. 5-4-IX) would then be there by coincidence.
(Though perhaps not completely by coincidence, which depends on how strongly our Universe may be divided in all kind of regions of space as mentioned with Fig. Fig. 5-4-I and 5-4-III. Regions that may not “lay around randomly” in the Universe, but rather in certain “structured larger regions”. All kind of clustered objects may often be in centers of such regions, thus enhancing the chance that an astronomical object lies in front of another astronomical object that is much further away.)
[June 2003: I now agree with Arp that it may be possible that the 4 quasars are at the same distance from us (because of gravitational redshift, 5-4; Arp connects redshifts to the age of mass29) as the central 14th magnitude galaxy of z=.04 (not shown in Fig. 5-4-IX) that is in the middle of the 4 (z=1.70) quasars and which seems to show evidence of interacting with the quasars on images29.
Arp reasons that the 4 quasars have been ejected from the central galaxy where I argue that the 4 quasars have slowly approached each other (and, perhaps, the central galaxy at z=.04, i.e. in the case gravitational redshift is (mainly) responsible for the z=1.70 instead of tired light redshift mainly being responsible).
I hope it turns out that high redshift quasars are extremely far away (5-3). It feels fine when you can see far. End June 2003]
[December 2003: Recently observations of eight distant clusters of galaxies, the furthest of which is around 10 billion light years away, were studied by an international group of astronomers led by David Lumb of ESA's Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC) in the Netherlands77. They compared these clusters to those found in the nearby Universe and found that clusters of galaxies in the distant Universe are not like those of today, they seem to give out more X-rays than today, which makes the conventional astronomers think that the density of clusters of galaxies in the early universe has been higher than today. I think the measurements easily can be explained with the far away galaxies being further away than thought right now because of tired light redshift. In that case those far away clusters may turn out to have the same density as the clusters found in the nearby Universe. I think it will turn out that objects in the Universe are much further away than thought so far, and so: right now I would choose for quasars being extremely far away because of tired light redshift rather than quasars being much nearer because of gravitational redshift. Though, both tired light and gravitational redshift may contribute to the redshift of quasars, it is something to be sought out. End December 2003]
[March 2004: Jesse Greenstein and Maarten Schmidt showed that it may be unlikely that (at least certain) quasars have large gravitational redshifts. Many of the emission lines come from the gas clouds surrounding quasars and are formed at different depths in the gas clouds. If the redshifts were mainly gravitational the emission lines would be spread over a continuous range of redshifts6. Perhaps there can be 2 types of quasars in this respect: small compact nearby quasars with high gravitational redshift, and big not compact quasars with low (or no) gravitational redshift that can be very far away. End March 2004]
[August 2004: Scientists from the University of Nottingham have been investigating the properties of quasars and nearby galaxies. As part of this study, they have overturned previous analyses by alternative thinking cosmologists, which suggested that quasars fling out of nearby galaxies. The researchers concluded that quasars are not thrown out of nearby galaxies232. In this chapter it is suggested that quasars may be nearby because of gravitational redshift, but instead of being flung out of galaxies they are suggested to (sometimes) slowly spiral towards galaxies. Still, I rather see quasars as very far away. End August 2004]
[March 19 2005: A team of astronomers, including Halton Arp, have found a high redshift quasar within a nearby spiral galaxy (the galaxy is 300 million light years away). The quasar has a redshift of 2.11 and the researchers found that the quasar appears to be interacting with the interstellar gas within the galaxy288. Still, I am not convinced, I think the quasar lies far behind the galaxy and does not interact with the gas within the galaxy. End March 19 2005]
Part 6 (chapters 6-1 and 6-2) presents a new pulsar model and a new white dwarf model.
[May 2003: My ideas about pulsars have changed so strongly since January 2002 that adding May 2003 additions is an impossible job in this chapter. End May 2003]
There are some double stars with one star “lacking”. The blue supergiant HDE 226868 is a big visible star about which Cygnus X-1, a strong X-ray source, orbits. Cygnus X-1 has a mass of more than 5 solar masses and is seen as a strong candidate for a (stellar) black hole (by big bang astronomers). As mentioned in 5-1: black holes may be a theoretical concept that does not exist with gravity as a pushing force.
In 5-2 it is reasoned that elements higher than iron may process into higher elements by very strong gravitational contraction and by doing so they may absorb heat and low energy radiation (because the maximum binding energy per nucleon occurs at iron, see Fig. 6-1-I, picture taken from the book by Harrison6).
Figure 6-1-I. The binding energy curve of atomic nuclei. The maximum binding energy per nucleon occurs at iron.
Perhaps Cygnus X-1 is just a huge compact dark matter object that builds up heat and pressure by gravitational contraction, gives quickly a higher-than-iron-endothermic-reaction that takes energy, thus cools of quickly, builds up heat and pressure again, etc. This may be the reason why Cygnus X-1 flickers rapidly, in less than 0.001 s. Thus Cygnus X-1 may have a pulsar quality.
When new physics rule out black holes they may, of course, rule out neutron stars as well. If the neutron star light house model does not fit in anymore, then what can be a new pulsar model?
One may think of a huge compact dark matter object, big enough to trigger certain reactions, by gravitational contraction, in the nucleus of the compact dark matter/heavy element object.
[August 2004: Mass and radius of pulsars are two hard-sought properties of pulsars242. Thus pulsars can be much bigger than expected right now by big bang astronomers. End August 2004]
Pulsars have a iron/nickel crust60. As mentioned above with Cygnus X-1: elements may process into higher elements than iron by nuclear fusion under very strong gravitational contraction.
Somewhere in the nucleus or around the nucleus may be an area that can become active under certain heat/pressure. Thus the following may happen: when an object contracts under gravitational contraction then at a certain point, when heat and pressure are high enough, a certain endothermic (higher elements than iron processing into even higher elements) reaction may occur, thus cooling the dark matter object. This cooling makes the endothermic reaction end, after which gravitational pressure and heat builds up again until the same reaction is triggered again, etc.
[February 2004: Another possibility: an exothermic reaction by elements lighter than iron (for instance 2 silicon atoms fusing into one iron atom) happens, thus building up heat and pressure, until the heat and pressure becomes so big that an endothermic reaction starts, for instance 4 iron atoms fusing into one lead atom; after which the endothermic reaction can start again, etc. The basic concept of the in this chapter described pulsar model is: you have a mechanism that heats (i.e. gravity or an exothermic reaction) and this mechanism triggers a mechanism that cools (i.e. an endothermic reaction); such a combination is suggested to produce pulses. End February 2004]
Such endothermic reactions may absorb (low energy) photons (there are very many CBR photons), like the exothermic reactions of fusing elements lighter than iron emit photons. Low energy protons can penetrate deeply into matter.
[February 2004: With an exothermic reaction, emitting photons, as well as an endothermic reaction, absorbing photons, both going on in a pulsar, the exothermic reaction may deliver photons and energy for the endothermic reaction. End February 2004]
This would give a mechanism in an infinite universe that recycles photons back into baryonic matter (and heavy element nuclei may break down into HII by radio-loud activity of AGNs, see 5-2).
[February 2004: Such processes of heavy elements fusing into heavier elements than iron while absorbing photons may be likely to happen in all kind of celestial objects. Thus not only pulsars may be at work turning photons (and energy, for instance in the form of gravitons/gravity particles) back into baryonic matter. And: elements like iron fusing into heavier elements may be the cooling mechanism of the Universe (4-2). End February 2004]
When this process of heating up and cooling down can go very quickly and very exactly (where frequency/time is concerned) then perhaps this way the features of pulsars can be explained: pulses by heating up and cooling down, the pulses send out at the peak of the heat, the pulses thus being caused by black body thermal radiation of the heated up pulsar.
Radio pulses may be caused by electrons being send out by the heated pulsar, thus causing radio waves by synchrotron radiation (6-1).
[April 22 2007: Recently brown dwarfs have been discovered putting out extremely bright pulses of radio waves, much like pulsars. A research team observed a set of brown dwarfs last year, and found that three of the objects emit extremely strong, repeating pulses of radio waves. Big bang astronomers now think brown dwarfs may be a missing link between pulsars and planets in our own Solar System, which also emit radio waves, but more weakly than brown dwarfs. The scientists think that the radio waves rae produced by a mechanism also seen at work in planets, including Jupiter and Earth. This process involves electrons interacting with the planet's magnetic field to produce radio waves that then are amplified, or strengthened, by natural masers that amplify radio waves the same way a laser amplifies light waves. The brown dwarfs the team observed are between planets and pulsars in the strength of their radio emissions. While they don't think the mechanism that's producing the radio waves in brown dwarfs is exactly the same as that producing pulsar radio emissions, they think there may be enough similarities that further study of brown dwarfs may help unlock some of the mysteries about how pulsars work. While pulsars produce observed pulses typically several times a second to hundreds of times a second, the brown dwarfs observed are showing pulses roughly once every two to three hours450.
Next to pulsars (6-1) a lot of other celestial objects may have pulsar mechanisms that too are not due to the rotation and hence “lighthouse beams” of the objects (6-1. End April 22 2007]
Such a black body radiation model (at least for higher frequency wavelengths) of pulsars would explain why the pulse-peaks of pulsars are sharp at high temperature radiation and less sharp with radiation that has a lower temperature: higher temperatures have shorter time periods because of fast(er) cooling down.
It may also explain why sometimes there are gamma pulses, X-ray pulses and radio pulses, but no optical pulses. Perhaps the heat is so strong that gamma ray and X-ray pulses are seen, but no optical pulses. Radio pulses are seen then because of electrons emitting synchrotron radiation.
There are also pulsars that have X-ray and gamma ray pulses, but no radio pulses. Perhaps those pulsars don't rotate or hardly rotate, thus they have no magnetic field and hence emit no radio pulses by synchrotron radiation.
[February 2004: When they don't rotate or hardly rotate then the contraction by gravity is stronger (no centrifugal forces), which then may explain the high energy (X-ray/gamma) radiation. End February 2004]
[May 2004: Astronomers have made the first direct measurement of a pulsar's magnetic field. Direct measurement showed that the magnetic field of the pulsar 1E1207.4-5209 is 30 times weaker than predictions based on the indirect methods based on theoretical (big bang) assumptions about pulsars. Astronomers can measure the rate at which the time period between two succeeding pulses grows. They have always assumed that friction between its magnetic field and its surroundings was the cause. In this case, their only conclusion is that something else is pulling on the (big bang) neutron star106.
The here presented pulsar model gives another explanation of the pulse periods becoming longer in time and so a weak magnetic field is no problem for the here presented pulsar model. Instead it is a confirmation of the here presented model, because in the here presented model pulsars don't have to spin (very) fast and so a much weaker magnetic field (than predicted so far by big bang astronomers) is a confirmation. In fact, low(er) magnetic fields were predicted on this website for radio-quiet X-ray and gamma ray pulsars (6-1). The 1E1207.4-5209 pulsar is a radio-quiet X-ray pulsar109. End May 2004]
Radio wave pulses caused by synchrotron radiation may explain why pulses at radio wavelengths show peaks at a little different moment in the pulse intervals and why those radio peaks are so much “spread evenly” (i.e. “hills” rather than peaks) compared to the high energy pulses: electrons producing synchrotron radiation make different pulses than dark matter producing radiation peaks by thermal black body radiation.
Though these observations also may be explained with the conventional science explanation called dispersion: interaction of the photons coming from the pulsar with electrons in the line-of-sight to the pulsar, photons with longer wavelengths are slowed down more this way.
When the reaction-region is not exactly in the very core of a pulsar nor that the region is found in a certain shell (with everywhere exactly the same distance to the center) around the core and if a pulsar has a certain rotation then the pulses won't come after exactly the same time-intervals when one observes the pulses over 10 repeating pulses, but the time-interval between pulses becomes very accurate when one looks at them over millions of pulses, because then the effect by rotation is flattened out. For the same reasons the pulsar peaks may be irregular in shape.
[February 2004: If so, then it may be possible to get the rotation rate of the pulsar out of the “time-interval pattern”. End February 2004]
A certain area within the nucleus with elements being processed into higher elements will slowly get exhausted and thus the endothermic-reaction-region slowly displaces itself away from the nucleus of the dark matter object (= pulsar) to a more outer region in the object. This would mean that the gravitational contraction becomes a little less strong and thus it will take more time to build up the heat and pressure before a new reaction starts. Thus it may be that the pulse periods become a little larger, i.e. it may explain the spindown rates of pulsars.
[September 10 2005: Pulsars in binary star systems can speed up with the help from a companion star. For the first time ever, this speeding-up has been observed. There is direct evidence for the pulsar IGR J00291+5934 pulsing faster whilst cannibalizing its companion, something which no one had ever seen before for such a system. A pulsar can remove gas from its companion star in a process called “accretion”. The flow of gas onto the pulsar makes the pulsar pulse faster and faster364. With more material on the pulsar stronger gravitational forces make the pulsar pulse faster. End September 10 2005]
In high energy pulsars with a high speed of “burning” the endothermic-reaction-region displaces itself faster away from the nucleus of the pulsar and thus the spindown rate of high energy pulsars may be faster. Millisecond pulsars with a lower speed of “burning” then will have a lower spindown rate.
Also: it is often observed that pulse periods become a little longer until at a certain moment the pulse period shortens (a so-called “glitch” event), after which it starts to become longer again (the reason for the glitches is unknown so far). This may be explained by: the old reaction-region becomes so exhausted that another deeper region with slightly different chemical composition (lower concentration of the “fuel”; thus higher pressure/temperature is needed) triggers off with a shorter pulse period, after which the region where the reactions take place slowly move outward again, thus explaining that pulse periods become larger again.
Perhaps that over very (explaining the fact that it is not observed (yet)) long times pulse periods may become shorter: if new elements (i.e. heavier elements) start to “burn” this will need stronger pressure and higher temperatures. But also: the pulsar has gotten more higher elements because of the former fusion into such higher elements and thus may stronger pressure and temperature cause the pulsar to build up pressure and temperature faster, thus going to shorter periods (with also faster cooling down: higher temperature and pressure trigger faster reactions of the new (higher) element(s), see also Fig. 6-1-I). Thus the pulses may become less hot, i.e. the pulsar will send out pulses with colder (blackbody) radiation. This may mean that normal pulsars may evolve into millisecond pulsars (6-1).
Pulsars changing their period to a (substantial) shorter pulse period is not observed so far, perhaps because a pulse period jumping to a substantial shorter period may be a slim chance: a certain element may “burn” for a very long time. A change of the pulsar to another element may trigger a strong reaction (perhaps a (super)nova) because of strong heating by gravitational contraction before a higher element is fused in an endothermic process, thus cooling down the pulsar.
[February 2004: Instead of heat by gravitational contraction there may be an exothermic reaction with elements lighter than iron fusing. Perhaps such a process is more likely to produce a (super)nova (of course this way (= supernova) a star may turn into a pulsar, as thought right now by conventional astronomy). End February 2004]
[June 2004: Perhaps that in some stars a pulsar mechanism can be at work, thus holding the star at a certain temperature (5-1). Perhaps that the mysterious outburst of the star V838 Mon in January 2002 can be explained by a pulsar mechanism within the star changing to new “fuel”133. End June 2004]
[July 25 2005: SGR 1806-20, a neutron star, exploded and sent X-rays flooding through the galaxy on December 27, 2004 - producing a flash brighter than anything ever detected beyond the solar system342. Perhaps that the gigantic explosion of the neutron star halfway across the Milky Way galaxy, the largest such explosion ever recorded in the universe, can be explained by a pulsar changing to a new “fuel” as described above. End July 25 2005]
There may also be two regions where certain endothermic reactions take place at (almost) the same time. This may explain smaller pulses next to a main pulse. The other area producing a smaller pulse may “exhaust” in another way than the region producing the main pulse and this may cause subpulse movement.
[May 3 2005: Perhaps there can also be many small regions. Or perhaps that heat from different places within the core or from different places within a layer surrounding the core, can be tunneled along certain ways to the surface. This way hot spots on (what big bang astronomers address as) neutron stars may be explained. The recently for the first time observed hot spots are very different in size, which is causing trouble for big bang astronomers, who can't explain the very different sizes of the hot spots331. End May 3 2005]
Recently a team of astronomers claims to have discovered that powerful radio bursts in pulsars can be generated by structures as small as a beach ball. The small size of these regions is inconsistent with all but one proposed theory for how the radio emission is generated61.
The research team studied the pulsar at the center of the Crab Nebula, more than 6,000 light-years from Earth. The researchers discovered that some of the “giant” pulses contain subpulses that last no longer than two nanoseconds. That means, they say, that the regions in which these subpulses are generated can be no larger than about two feet across -- the distance that light could travel in two nanoseconds.
Perhaps this severe problem in current pulsar lighthouse models can be solved when the above described mechanism of heating up/cooling down produces the subpulses.
A few pulsars have two or more stable emission patterns, and switch, apparently at random, between the two emission “modes”62. This may be possible if there are two different reaction-regions that can “take over” from each other: at a certain moment a certain region needs that much (gravitational) pressure/heat that the other region takes over for a while, until that other region needs so much pressure/heat that the other region can take over again, etc. The region that is “taking over” is the region that triggers off a reaction first, thus cooling down the pulsar and thus the other region won't trigger off.
Magnetic fields of pulsars were expected to decay in the lighthouse pulsar model. It turned out that magnetic fields of pulsars are constant60.
In the here described pulsar model without rotation causing the pulses the magnetic fields are constant.
When a pulsar is produced during a supernova out of a collapsing star that is part of a binary system, then the pulsar may get “thrown out” of the binary system because it has lost its outer layers: the remaining pulsar may have gotten such a high density that the binary partner looses its gravitational grip on the pulsar (with pushing gravity, 3-2). This may explain the high space velocities of pulsars. It may also explain why there are less binary pulsars than might be expected from studies of binary stars62.
Also: pulsars have high densities and thus there is less inertial resistance by gravity particles (3-2), which may also contribute to high speed velocities of pulsars.
Pulsars with high speeds (and also white dwarfs, 6-2) may flow out of galaxies, which then may partly explain dark matter objects in intergalactic space.
Pulse transmissions may be interrupted for seconds. When resumed, varying parameters continue from where they have left off. This is called pulse nulling. Perhaps dark matter objects passing in front of the pulsar can explain pulse nulling.
Matthew Young63 found that the pulsar PSR J1244-3933 has a radio pulse period of 8.5 seconds. This is impossible according to current pulsar models. With the here described model there is no problem with a pulse period of 8.5 s (5-2).
[July 11 2006: Recently a neutron star was found to have an emission varying with a cycle that repeats itself every 6.7 hours. This is an astonishingly long period, tens of thousands of times longer than big bang scientists expected. The scientists don't have a conclusive answer to what is causing the long cycles427. [July 24 2007: New research has confirmed the 6.7 hours cycle of the (object that big bang astronomers call a) neutron star460. End July 24 2007]
There is a stable variation repeating every 10 hours in the Wolf-Rayet star WR123 (6-1). Pulsars may be like stars in a way, thus having (long) pulsations like stars every now and then.
Like there may be no sharp line between planets, stars and white dwarfs, there also may be no sharp line between stars, white dwarfs and pulsars. It all depends on the amount of matter and the elements within that matter, thus slowly an object may first be a planet, then become a star (7-1), then become a white dwarf (6-2) and finally become a pulsar (6-1). End July 11 2006]
[May 2004: When big bang astronomers show pulsar models they draw nice pictures of two light cones coming from a pulsar. Also so-called “artist's concepts” of pulsars show light cones99, 101. But I have never seen such a double light cone on actual pictures/observations of pulsars, which is something one would expect to see sometimes with the big bang light house model for pulsars (with two pulsar edge-on beams lightning up surrounding gas). Pulsars will be seen relatively easy when the Earth is in the path of the light cone, i.e. when we see the pulsar face-on. But pulsars can be relatively nearby and my guess is that by now we should have observed an edge-on pulsar double cone. As far as I know this has never been observed.
The here presented pulsar model may explain in a simple way the firehose-like jet discovered in action coming from the Vela pulsar102 when on takes in mind the explanation of radio loud AGNs in 5-2. The outer jet of particles of the Vela pulsar may be originated by the explosion of a concentration of an element like uranium at a certain spot inside the pulsar. End May 2004]
[July 2004: The Boomerang Nebula is one of the Universe's peculiar places. In 1995, using the 15-meter Swedish ESO Submillimeter Telescope in Chile, astronomers Sahai and Nyman revealed that it is the coldest place in the Universe found so far (February 2003). With a temperature of -272 degrees C, it is only 1 degree warmer than absolute zero. Even the -270 degrees C microwave background radiation is warmer than this nebula. It is the only object found so far that has a temperature lower than the background radiation215.
Somehow there has to be a cooling down process going on explaining the low temperatures of the Boomerang Nebula. Perhaps that a cooling down mechanism with elements fusing into elements higher than iron may be something to consider here. Perhaps the merging of two (or more) stars can account for the Boomerang Nebula. The nebula has two “bow tie” lobes expanding from the central region. Perhaps that two dark matter objects of the two (or more) original stars have merged, thus starting up a cooling down process by fusing elements into elements higher than iron. The gasses of the stars fall towards the new and bigger heavy element core of the new object and thus may be spit out again bipolar, thus accounting for the lobes.
Also the merging of multiple dark matter objects within an infalling cloud of gas may have originated the Boomerang Nebula. End July 2004]
[September 3 2007: Big bang astronomers have studied a spectral line from hot iron atoms of neutron stars. They found that the iron line is broadened asymmetrically. The researchers think that the asymmetric broadening is caused because the iron atoms whirl around in a disk just beyond the neutron star's surface at 40 percent the speed of light. Asymmetric lines have been found for black holes too. This is the first confirmation that neutron stars can produce them as well. The astronomers think that it shows some similarity between neutron stars and black holes. They think that both objects accrete matter in a similar way468.
I think that there may be some similarity indeed between “black holes” (or rather: AGNs) and neutron stars (which do not consist of neutrons in my opinion). AGNs and neutron stars both may have gas going to and fro the object because of: pushing by photons coming from the object and gravity pull by the object (5-1). Hence the broadening of the lines. The lines then may be asymmetric because the objects rotate with a certain speed. Iron atoms going around an object with 40 percent the speed of light is hard to believe for me. End September 3 2007]
Millisecond pulsars have a low magnetic field, which is puzzling when pulsars are considered to rotate very fast, as believed with the (conventional) lighthouse model. In the here presented model slow rotation leads to fast contraction (because of low centrifugal forces). Slow rotation of millisecond pulsars then may explain the low magnetic fields of millisecond pulsars. Also: millisecond pulsars may be very old pulsars and thus they may have lost much of their rotation by inertial gravity forces (3-2, 7-1), thus explaining the low magnetic fields of millisecond pulsars too. Gamma ray pulsars are, in the here described model, likely to be young pulsars, thus (still) having faster rotation rates and thus gamma ray pulsars may have stronger magnetic fields.
This may also explain why the pulsating remnants of supernovae, like the Crab Nebula pulsar and the Vela pulsar, are not millisecond pulsars. Those pulsars descend from supernovae and so perhaps they do rotate fast and hence don't contract very fast.
But perhaps there are other ways to explain millisecond pulsars. As mentioned above: normal pulsars may evolve into millisecond pulsars (6-1).
The larger the average density of a Cepheid the shorter the pulsation period. This may be the case with pulsars too: by burning elements into higher elements the density of pulsars grows larger, which triggers faster gravitational contraction which then may lead to shorter pulse periods.
Most of the millisecond pulsars are considered to be very old60. This then would fit into the here described way of looking at pulsars. I wonder what can happen if a (very old) pulsar gravitationally contracts, heats up, but no endothermic reaction starts because a certain element is exhausted. Perhaps this can bring a (Type Ia super)nova. But perhaps some pulsars may go to a point where a lot of (for example) uranium is produced in the core and perhaps this uranium can explode, which then may produce a (Type Ia) supernova (5-2). Type Ia supernovae coming to existence this way may explain the absence of hydrogen or helium lines in Type Ia supernovae optical spectra as well that it may explain why all Ia's have virtually the same luminosity. Type Ia 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 supernovae). A lot of uranium may explode within a pulsar, thus explaining the relatively small amount of mass detonating so violently.
[February 2004: If the pulses are caused by an exothermic reaction (instead of heat by gravitational contraction) in combination with an endothermic reaction then perhaps it is possible that the pulsar cools down and becomes a dark matter object when it runs out of the element that causes the exothermic reaction. Perhaps this way some pulsars may become white dwarfs (with no hydrogen or helium coat). End February 2004]
[May 2004: If the heat of pulsars comes from gravitational contraction then, if no endothermic reaction happens anymore, a dark matter object may become hot by gravitational contraction. When the dark matter object won't detonate into a Type Ia supernovae, as suggested above, then perhaps it is possible that dark matter objects can glow by gravitational contraction at a certain temperature, which may explain white dwarfs (6-2) or mysterious hot (X-ray producing) brown dwarfs114 (X-rays from brown dwarfs can be explained in a different way too, 7-1). End May 2004]
[July 2004: One then may wonder how the heat is produced, i.e. from what “mass” does the heat come from. Perhaps gravity particles can produce heat, i.e. gravity particles are absorbed and (finally, in a way) get spit out as a photon again, see also 3-2. End July 2004]
Perhaps there is also in our Sun a (slow-low) pulsar quality (or qualities), which may explain the 11-year sunspot number cycle. It may also explain why the sunspot cycle starts with sunspots at high latitudes and ends with sunspots at low latitudes: the Sun's mantle (surrounding a heavy element nucleus, 7-1) is bigger at low latitudes because of the rotation of the Sun, which may cause delay.
Sunspots are cooler (3800 K) than the surrounding photosphere (5800 K). If a slowly pulsating nucleus produces elements higher than Fe this would be a cooling process. So: our Sun may already poses pulsar qualities. I admit that an 11 year cycle is a very long pulse period, not to mention the 55 year period concerning sunspots. There is also a 5 minutes oscillation though: soundwaves are coming from the interior of the Sun with periods of 5 minutes.
Perhaps some kind of pulsar quality may (also) explain solar flares, which are virtually non-existent at sunspot minimum. Solar flares produce protons, electrons and atomic nuclei. The electrons produce radio bursts in the corona, which may make one remind of radio pulses from pulsars (6-1).
All here described features of the Sun are not understood so far, perhaps a (slow-low) pulsar quality of a heavy element nucleus (6-1) can explain some things.
[January 23 2006: The surface of the star Alpha Centauri B pulsates in and out by very tiny amounts - only a dozen metres or so every four minutes388. Perhaps a pulsar quality in the star is responsible for this. End January 23 2006]
If strong concentration of dark matter can raise pulsar qualities then cores of certain stars may have certain pulsar qualities too, which may explain the variability of certain variable star types, like ZZ Ceti Stars, RR Lyrae stars, Cepheids or Dwarf Cepheids. Perhaps such stars can be progenitors of pulsars (6-2, 7-1).
It is said that in every red giant there is a white dwarf waiting to get out (perhaps not only in red giants, 6-2). Perhaps in some stars there is a pulsar waiting to get out. Though pulsars may also come to existence when multiple stars (for instance a globular or open cluster) collapse (causing a supernovae, 5-2)
[June 2004: The North Star, Polaris, is a low-amplitude classical Cepheid with a pulsation period of 3.97 days. Polaris is noteworthy among cepheids because its pulsation period and light amplitude are rapidly changing with time. From over 100 years of observations, an increase in its apparent period of dP/dt = +3.51 sec/yr and a decrease in light amplitude have been found. Its light variation has decreased from ~0.15 mag (visual) in the 1900s to a minimum value of 0.020 mag during the mid-1990s. However, recent photometry, from 2001-2004, indicates its light(V) amplitude is again increasing and is 0.038 mag during 2004.
There is another remarkable characteristic of Polaris. Analysis of all available 20th century photometry indicates that the mean brightness of Polaris has increased from about V ~ +2.12 mag, in the 1900s, to the current high value of = +1.95 mag. Investigation of Polaris' brightness with all available historical sources including measurements by Ptolemy, Al Sufi, Tycho, Uleg Beg, Tycho Brahe, Herschel and many 19th century measures, has shown that there is strong evidence that Polaris has increased in brightness by more than 1 mag over the last two millennia148.
The here mentioned characteristics of Polaris are an unsolved puzzle for big bang astronomers.
Perhaps that there is a heavy metal core with pulsar qualities within Polaris while at the same time the star has gas fusion going on in the gas surrounding the heavy metal core. Gravitational shielding (3-2) by the outer layers of gas may cause the core to pulsate relatively slowly (compared to regular pulsars). Exhausting of the element(s) that bring endothermic reactions in the core may cause increase of Polaris' apparent period. A new endothermic reaction with other (more available) elements in the core may explain why the light variation changed from decreasing until the 1990s to increasing. Overall exhausting of elements that cool down the core may have brought the overall increase in brightness over the last two millennia. End June 2004]
[June 13 2005: Optical and X-ray observations of J0806 showed periodic variations of 321.5 seconds, barely more than five minutes. According to big bang astronomers the observation in J0806 is most likely the orbital period of a binary white dwarf system. However the possibility that it represents the spin of one of its white dwarfs cannot be completely ruled out. “It's either the most compact binary known or one of the most unusual systems we've ever seen. Either way it's got a great story to tell,” the big bang researchers say336.
Two white dwarfs orbiting each other in 5 minutes is extremely fast. Perhaps that a pulsar quality as described on this webpage can explain the periodic variations of J0806 in a simpler way. End June 13 2005]
When a black hole does not exist (5-1) and a neutron star does not exist (6-1) because of new physics (with pushing gravity, 3-2, and without the theory of relativity, 2-1) then a degenerate gas explaining white dwarfs may be something that does not exist either. A white dwarf then may be a smaller version of a pulsar: a dark matter object with heavy elements, but then with less matter than a pulsar and so: no endothermic pulsating reaction occurs (6-1) (though variable white dwarfs may be an exception, 6-2).
One may wonder about the density of white dwarfs, which are supposed to be extremely high with the degenerate gas concept. The relationship between the mass and
radius, and hence density, of a white dwarf is a theoretical concept, which has hardly been
tested empirically due to the difficulty of making accurate measurements of mass
and radius in such faint objects64.
Even stars with very little heavy metal content in their outer regions may have a core with heavy elements (an old dark matter object) that originated the star (7-1). Population II stars may not originate from a gas/dust cloud only, they may need a (relatively small) dark matter object that triggers star formation.
This may even be much more the case with Population I stars. Population I stars burn more fiercely and are more blue, more hot. This may be because Population I stars originate by larger dark matter objects, which assemble hydrogen until they light up as a Population I star. An example of a dark matter object may be a white dwarf, often likely to be the remains of an old star: the star stopped shining because of hydrogen/helium depletion and cooled of as a white dwarf or collapsed as a red giant after which a white dwarf remained. At a certain moment such a white dwarf will be cooled down enough and then hydrogen/helium won't be kept at a distance any longer by radiation pressure, thus the white (then blackened) dwarf may start assembling hydrogen again until it lights up as a Population I star. [July 2004: Cooled down red dwarfs may rather be the dark matter objects that trigger Population I star formation. End July 2004]
Right know white dwarfs are seen as the product of collapsing red giants. Such collapsing red giants produce bipolar outflows (a process which is poorly understood). Star formation produces bipolar outflows (YSOs) too (though, perhaps only the bigger dark matter objects produce YSOs; and perhaps YSOs are only produced in clouds with relatively strong concentrated gas, i.e. stars formed by a relative long period of gas assembling may light up without an YSO).
Dark matter objects may cause the bipolar outflows of YSOs.
Perhaps that larger dark matter objects can attract gas and produce white dwarfs the same way as stars are formed, i.e. (some of) the bipolar outflows which now are thought to be a collapsing red giant may be some kind of YSO.
I also wonder whether small stars with very heavy cores can still produce enough gravitational force to “burn” hydrogen or helium. The “burning” of hydrogen/helium in such stars, i.e. white dwarfs, then takes place at a closer distance from the surface (than in normal stars) and hence the surface of such small stars may be hot relative to other (bigger but colder) stars (with a relatively small heavy element core).
Also: if white dwarfs are not balls of degenerate gas with extremely high density, then the white dwarfs have much bigger surfaces and may cool down faster (too fast for conventional science) then expected so far. Thus perhaps nuclear fusion processes in white dwarfs may be something to consider (5-1).
[February 2004: I more and more think that white dwarfs may (often) be stars with a relatively large heavy metal core surrounded by a relatively small coat of gas in which nuclear fusion is going on. End February 2004]
[May 2004: In the nearest globular star clusters, called NGC 6397, three faint blue stars can be seen near the center of the cluster83. They may be examples of (old almost burned-out) stars with a heavy metal core surrounded by a relatively small coat of gas in which nuclear fusion is going on. End May 2004]
In 5-1 it is explained that, in a way, AGNs may be big balls of many dark matter objects, like white dwarfs (5-1). One may have to consider if it is possible that the “big balls” in AGNs are filled with many dark matter objects, like white dwarfs, glowing by gravitational contraction (5-1) or that the “big balls” in AGNs are filled with massive dark matter objects, like white dwarfs, glowing by nuclear fusion (5-1).
[February 2004: If the compact sources of AGNs are “big balls” with very much old stars (or rather: old dark matter objects with new gas) then it may be likely that those stars have big heavy metal cores surrounded by a relatively small coat of gas, i.e. then it may be likely that such “big balls” contain many white dwarfs. End February 2004]
[May 2004: If dark matter objects can glow by gravitational contraction then this may be a way too to explain the existence of white dwarfs (6-1). Glowing by gravitational contraction may also explain the helium DB gab (6-2). End May 2004]
Thus white dwarfs may be dark matter objects (with or without gas). This would explain the rotation problem of white dwarfs: because conventional science sees white dwarfs as the remnants of red giants that have collapsed white dwarfs should all have high rotation rates. But they don't. Some white dwarfs have slow rotation rates, too slow according to conventional science, but this problem is solved if a star does not have to collapse in order to become a white dwarf, it just may stop burning hydrogen and then cool off as a white dwarf. Some white dwarfs may then be the remaining dark heavy element core, explaining the high density of the white dwarf.
So perhaps that white dwarfs with slow rotation rates descend from (normal) stars (without a collapse) where white dwarfs with fast rotation rates descend from red giants (with a collapse).
Whether or not a star becomes a red giant that will collapse may depend on the heavy element core. When the core is relatively big then the stars radiation pressure may be too small relative to the gravitational pull by the core to bring the star to the red giant phase.
[February 2004: Right now red giants are thought to be “blown up stars”, i.e. the outer regions of the red giant have been “blown away” from the core by radiation pressure. But perhaps that a red giant can come to existence by hydrogen coming from out of interstellar space and surrounding a certain star, i.e. hydrogen attracted to the star by gravity but being kept at a certain distance at the same time by radiation pressure of the (central) star (see also my explanation of BLRs in AGNs, 5-1). End February 2004]
[July 2004: The star V838 Monocerotis could be the coolest supergiant ever observed according to new observations by a team of researchers from Keele University and the Gemini Observatory. The star's dim appearance after an episode of rapid expansion is due to its exceptionally low temperature and not a concealing veil of dust as previously thought. A team of big bang astronomers has been monitoring V838 Monocerotis with the United Kingdom Infrared telescope (UKIRT), since an Australian amateur astronomer, Nicholas J. Brown, found it in the throes of an outburst of light on 6 January 2002. This marked the start of an extraordinary change to the star over a remarkably short time. Initially a normal-looking star, V838 Mon expanded into a cool supergiant in just a few months. The transformation was marked by three episodes of brightening, followed by a dramatic fade. At the time, a logical explanation for the fading seemed to be obscuring dust that could have formed from material expelled when the star puffed up. But a spectrum obtained in March 2002 was characteristic of a typical cool supergiant star with a surface temperature around 4000 Kelvin211.
Perhaps that the episodes of brightening were started up by a hydrogen/gas cloud falling towards the star as suggested above. Though, perhaps it is more likely that the team has witnessed the merging of two individual stars as they suggest211 (see also 7-1). Perhaps that red giants can come to existence (too) by the merging of stars (or the merging of stars with dark matter objects, or even the merging of multiple dark matter objects in a cloud of gas). End July 2004]
If white dwarfs can assemble hydrogen again after cooling down enough (thus lightning up as a star again one day), then, when the white dwarf much later becomes a white dwarf again (after having been a star again), the rotation rate of the white dwarf may have slowed down very much, which may explain the slow rotation rate of some white dwarfs. Also: assembling hydrogen may bring hydrogen with a certain peculiar flow, which may slow down or speed up the rotation of the white dwarf/new to be born star.
Right now white dwarfs densities are calculated as extremely high. But this may be wrong. With new physics one gets different results. Especially the density versus gravitationally pull mentioned in 3-2 may be important in this respect: high density objects orbiting a giant star get attracted less by the giant star because of the high density.
For example: Sirius B orbits Sirius A at a close distance and with a high velocity. To stay in the small orbit Sirius B is calculated to have very much mass, but with formula's that don't work with point masses (3-2) one will get a lower amount of mass for the high density object Sirius B and thus Sirius B won't have such a conspicuous high mass/density as is calculated for Sirius B by current conventional science.
Next to slow rotation another big problem with respect to white dwarfs is the helium DB gap from 30,000 to 45,000 K.
With stars having a different chemical composition than their outer region (7-1, also advocated by Manuel41), or: if (about) all stars have an old dark matter (object) core, one gets different star features.
Little stars (with very heavy cores) may burn fiercely until their core is about to become without gasses after which the stars stop burning hydrogen and/or helium. So: white dwarfs may originate without the collapse of a star (as thought right now in conventional science).
And: with a big heavy element core stars may/will consist of stratified layers because of gravitational pull (6-2).
Thus one can get stars stopping fusion reactions and then cooling off without a collapse. This then may happen within a certain range of star-magnitudes, which may originate white dwarfs with hydrogen layers cooling off from 120,000 K to temperatures well below 10,000 K. Stars may blow away their hydrogen layer by radiation pressure which then may produce helium white DB dwarfs beneath 30,000 K. Perhaps not above 30,000 K because stars with higher temperatures may have bigger heavy element cores that produce stronger gravitational pull which then prevents hydrogen to be blown away by radiation pressure (6-2).
The bigger stars without a big heavy element core relative to the gas surrounding the core (6-2) may show a different way of white dwarf formation. Those stars may indeed become red giants that have been “blown up” by radiation pressure to big spheres. At a certain moment those stars may start to collapse because of diminished radiation pressure because of exhaustion of a certain gas (helium) that is being fused into higher elements (as is thought right now).
When those big stars have a compact heavy element core inside then the interior of the star may happen to exist in “pure” layers by gravitational pull: the helium layer has hardly any hydrogen and a hydrogen layer occupies the more outer regions of the star. (When the core of a red giant is capable of producing stratified layers then later this core, being called a white dwarf by then, is, of course, capable of producing stratified layers as well. A “degenerate gas density” may not be necessary to produce stratified layers in a white dwarf or stars. Again: white dwarfs may be normal stars (too, next to hot heavy element cores cooling down) that fuse elements; they are white dwarfs then because their hydrogen/helium layers are relatively thin and their heavy element cores are relatively big.)
When the red giant collapses the outer regions may be blown outwards into interstellar space while the inner helium layer shows up “naked”, i.e. without hydrogen, which may explain the hotter DO helium white dwarfs. Those DO stars may have a high density and high mass and high (higher than 45,000 K) temperature (and a helium-layer), otherwise they wouldn't have become red giants (but instead have gone in a quiet way to a colder DA or DB white dwarfs, beneath 30,000 K in the DB/helium case, as mentioned above).
Thus with certain masses, temperatures and helium-layers hot DO helium white dwarfs may start to cool down. From a certain moment/temperature the huge and massive hot heavy element core surrounded with a helium layer may attract hydrogen again because of very strong gravitational pull. Thus a hydrogen layer may be formed, surrounding the helium layer. Perhaps 45,000 K is the lowest DO temperature in this respect, beneath that temperature a hydrogen layer may have established itself. Thus DO stars may turn themselves into DA stars. (The radiation pressure at 45,000 K and higher temperatures is strong, but also the gravitational force from the massive dark matter core in the white dwarf is strong.)
This may be a way to explain the helium DB gap from 30,000 to 45,000 K. One may wonder then about the presence of hydrogen in the surrounding space, but if hydrogen is thrown out by the collapse of the red giant then (part of) this hydrogen may be attracted (by gravity) again by the white dwarf immediately after it was thrown out.
Another explanation may concern the above mentioned possibility that white dwarfs can fuse hydrogen/helium because of strong gravitational forces by the heavy element core. Perhaps the fusing of helium is only possible with certain cores that have enough mass/density and hence fuse at certain high temperatures with 45,000 as the minimum temperature. When the helium fusion stops the temperature may go down very fast. Perhaps the star may get a “pulsar quality” (6-1), i.e. elements higher than iron are formed, which cools down the white dwarf very fast. This pulsar quality, i.e. cooling down process, may be triggered by the collapse of the star after the fusion has stopped.
Perhaps that some white dwarfs are big enough to trigger more pulsations (6-1) after the collapse, which may explain the existence of ZZ Ceti stars.
Recently, a new class of pulsating subdwarf stars is discovered65. Observations of hot objects in the Edinburgh-Cape blue survey have revealed a new class of object comprising a hot pulsating subdwarf in a binary with a F or G companion. The origin of subdwarfs is a mystery. It is thought that they could provide a possible route to the white dwarf sequence. These new discoveries appear to be multiperiodic pulsators.
Perhaps that different fusion processes, like a pulsar mechanism (6-1), in such (massive heavy element core) substars can cause the stars to be variable.
Perhaps that (some) variable white dwarfs may be progenitors of (some kind of) pulsars (6-1).
[January 30 2008: Big bang astronomers have found behavior like a pulsar in a white dwarf. At least one white dwarf, known as AE Aquarii, emits pulses of high-energy (hard) X-rays. It is the first time such pulsar-like behavior has ever been observed in a white dwarf. The team was not looking for pulsar-like behavior in a white dwarf, but after analyzing the data, they realized that the white dwarf delivers a hard X-ray every 33 seconds, much to their surprise471. White dwarfs can turn into pulsars and vice versa when you have a pulsar model and white dwarf model as described on this website. It therefore may be normal that some white dwarfs show pulsar-qualities. End January 30 2008]
Above 15,000 K, 15% of the white dwarfs are non-DA, below 15,000 K, half are non-DA. This may happen if also small low mass stars can become white dwarfs: those white dwarfs, descending from small stars, will have low temperatures, and: they may have lost easily their outer hydrogen layer by radiation pressure because of gravity forces upon the hydrogen being relatively small (because small stars have small heavy metal cores).
[April 2004: When you have pulsar and white dwarf concepts as described on this website then you will have intermediate heavy element cores that glow by gravitational contraction but don't have an endothermic (pulsar) reaction (yet or not anymore). Such glowing may cause certain white dwarfs to become very hot. At a certain (high) temperature an endothermic reaction will start and this temperature may bring the maximum temperature for white dwarfs. Glowing by gravitational contraction may start up from a certain temperature, for instance 40,000 K for DO helium white dwarfs, which may be crucial for explaining the helium DB gab. End April 2004]
Bright blue stars show excess redshift, the so-called K effect29. Through many decades many astronomers measured that O and OB stars show excess redshifts in the order of 20 - 30 km/s29.
Trumpler29 thought he could explain the excess redshift with gravitational redshift, but when he calculated the gravity at the surface of these stars he found it was to weak.
[October 2003: Half a century ago Finlay-Freundlich suggested that the K effect may be due to a tired light concept: photon-photon interaction76. End October 2003]
As mentioned above: we may have to look totally different at stars when their interior has a huge core of heavy elements in it (also professor Manuel thinks that the outer regions of stars are not representative for the interiors of the stars41, he argues that our Sun has a big iron core, 7-1). For instance: perhaps O and OB stars can only originate when a huge (cooled down) white dwarf, or a dark matter object, attracts huge amounts of hydrogen, for instance a (blackened) white dwarf of the size of Sirius B, which may have a mass-magnitude as big as the mass of our Sun8, or even heavier (cooled down) white dwarfs or (merged) dark matter objects may originate the biggest stars, perhaps objects of Cygnus X-1 mass-magnitude (6-1).
Though there probably will be a limit, because heavy dark compact objects may not be so dark when they have a certain magnitude, because of heating by gravitational contraction, thus causing radiation pressure that blows away approaching gasses. But: a fast rotating ball of many (smaller) dark matter objects (which then won't be heated up by gravitational contraction) may attract hydrogen too, thus originating a very massive star. And also: above it was mentioned that certain hot helium white dwarfs may attract hydrogen because of their strong gravitational pull, despite the radiation pressure. (See also 7-1.)
Sirius B has an observed gravitational redshift of 90 km/s. One can imagine that a light wave leaving an O or OB star, which has a dark matter core the size of Sirius B at its center, but which too has a huge mantle of gas surrounding that core, will have a lower gravitational redshift than Sirius B, but the redshift may (still) be in the order of 20-30 km/s.
Measured gravitational redshifts of white dwarfs range from 20 to 90 km/s8.
Thus perhaps excess redshift of bright blue stars may be very easily explained when we leave the old (big bang) paradigm that the outer regions of stars represent their contents. The interiors of stars may be much different than thought so far. There may be layers of certain chemical composition, and there may be much more nuclear fusion processes going on at the same time, corresponding with different layers and thus different heat and pressure.
Red giants are observed to have different nuclear fusion processes going on in layers. Helium burning in a more-inward layer, hydrogen burning in a more-outward layer. This then is of course not surprising if red giants have relatively massive cores of heavy elements as mentioned above. And it makes one suspect that big stars (with big heavy element cores) have different fusion processes going on too.
Very few binary systems are observed to contain two white dwarfs. Perhaps this can be understood with pushing gravity (3-2). When a red giant collapses and sheds a gas mantle then the density of the object suddenly becomes a lot bigger which may cause the binary partner to lose gravitational “grip” which then may cause the white dwarf to leave the binary system. This may explain the high space velocities of white dwarfs (and pulsars, 6-1).
Perhaps big stars may end as a white dwarf or a pulsar, depending on the heavy element core relative to the amount of surrounding gas. Stars with a relatively big heavy element core may not collapse, because the gravitational attraction is strong relative to the radiation pressure. Perhaps that (most of) those stars become white dwarfs without a (red giant type of) collapse. Right now such evolutions are not supposed to happen in astronomy, which causes the problem of high mass objects/white dwarfs. Such high mass objects/white dwarfs are suggested to originate from (coalesced) binary white dwarfs, “since they cannot be formed from single star evolution”66.
Perhaps thus that subdwarf O and B stars can end up as white dwarfs without an explosion.
Big stars with a relatively small heavy element core may explode after a collapse of the outward layers, because the gravitational attraction is less strong relative to the radiation pressure. Perhaps that (most of) those (big) starts become pulsars (where smaller “big stars” turn into white dwarfs without a collapse).
Though, of course, perhaps that the reason why stars (or heavy element cores) become white dwarfs or pulsars primarily is determined by the magnitude the heavy element core (rather than gas magnitude versus heavy element core magnitude), i.e. bigger cores become pulsars, smaller cores become white dwarfs.
Perhaps strong magnetic fields of some white dwarfs can be explained when white dwarfs can be bigger massive balls of heavy elements than thought so far.
Part 7 (chapters 7-1 and 7-2) presents dark matter objects as components in star formation and solar system formation.
What will happen in a universe that is infinite in time and space? All kind of old blackened stars (6-1) (or other dark matter, 4-1, 7-1) will be thrown out of galaxies and will be in intergalactic space for enormous long times. Until they get attracted, for instance, to the nucleus of an old (shrunk) galaxy and start to move to that galaxy until they finally fly into that galaxy. Meanwhile the galaxy has attracted gas (mostly hydrogen) from intergalactic space (3-2) and the dark matter objects (i.e. old blackened stars; or: dark matter pieces from clashed stars or from supernovae) assemble hydrogen until they light up as a star.
When the star is luminous it fuses elements into higher elements until it blackens again, after which it can cool down until it attracts new gas again. Attracting gas means it is not only attracting hydrogen and helium but also higher elements (4-4). The star may also fuse other elements than hydrogen or helium in its heavy element nucleus (6-2, 7-1).
Thus stars may slowly build up a big heavy element core. Examples of stars with big heavy element cores may be bright blue stars which may show excess redshift because of their heavy element cores (6-2).
Perhaps that also small stars (or brown dwarfs that later become stars when they get the chance to attract more hydrogen) can originate from dark matter (pieces/objects). Dark matter pieces which may have been produced by clashing dark matter objects (7-2) or by supernovae (5-2), X-ray bursters (5-2) or radio loud activity (5-2) and may be (or become, by merging) large enough to assemble hydrogen (4-4).
[June 2004: Such a way of looking at star formation leads to a very simple way of understanding the magnitudes of star and planet masses ranging from small planets, larger planets, brown dwarfs, red dwarfs, M-type stars, L-type stars, etc. to the biggest stars. Recently some of the world´s biggest telescopes directly measured the mass, for the first time, of one of the smallest stars ever seen in the universe. Barely the size of the planet Jupiter, the dwarf star weighs in at just 8.5 percent of the mass of our Sun. It was the first ever mass measurement of an L-type dwarf star. This stellar class was discovered in 1997 and was added to the spectral classification that had remained unchanged for half a century. Big bang astronomers consider the discovery as a major step towards the understanding of the types of objects that occupy the gap between Sun-like stars and planets192.
There is no gap when the formation of stars is understood by dark matter objects of all kind of magnitudes getting their chances to assemble gas, opposed to the big bang way of understanding planet/star formation, i.e. large clouds of gas and dust contracting. End June 2004]
[May 3 2005: Also between brown dwarfs and the largest planets there may be no gap. A European/American team of astronomers report the imaging discovery of a lightweight companion to AB Pictoris, a young star located about 150 light years from Earth. The estimated mass of the companion is between 13 and 14 times the mass of Jupiter, which places the companion right on the border line between massive planets and the lowest mass brown dwarfs326. End May 3 2005]
[May 18 2007: Recently astronomers announced that they have found the most massive transiting extrasolar planet that is about 1.18 times the size of Jupiter and contains about 8.2 times Jupiter's mass. (Transiting planet = planet crossing directly in front of the star as viewed from Earth.) The planet is as dense as the Earth, though the astronomers think that the planet is mostly made of hydrogen453.
I guess there will be a pretty big nucleus of elements heavier than helium inside the new found planet.
An intriguing feature of the planet is its highly eccentric (e=0.5) orbit. There is no other planet known with such an eccentric, close-in orbit. In addition, all other known transiting planets have circular orbits. The astronomers think that the most likely explanation is the presence of a second, outer world whose gravity pulls on the planet and perturbs its orbit. Although existing data cannot confirm a second planet, they cannot rule it out either453.
When you have solar system formation by planets swinging themselves around stars (7-1) planets with higher eccentricities may come to existence and then one does not need the presence of a second, outer world to have such a high eccentricity.
Recently another group of astronomers announced that they have found the hottest planet so far (2040 °C). Discovered in 2005, HD 149026b is a bit smaller than Saturn, making it the smallest extrasolar planet with a measured size. However, it is more massive than Saturn, and is suspected of having a core 70-90 times the mass of the entire Earth. It has more heavy elements (material other than hydrogen and helium) than exist in our whole solar system, outside the Sun. The planet is so hot that it is off the temperature scale that big bang astronomers expect for planets, they don't understand what's going on455.
I think things can be explained easier when you leave the big bang paradigm of star and planet formation out of clouds of gas and look at star and planet formation by thinking of heavy metal objects assembling gas. End May 18 2007]
[January 30 2008: Astronomers have found a brown dwarf 25 times as massive as Jupiter at 170 light-years from Earth. An object, known as 2M1207B, orbiting the brown dwarf, should be a physical impossibility because of its hotter-than-expected temperature, dim luminosity, young age and location, the astronomers say. The researchers propose that the object orbiting the brown dwarf is small, about the size of Saturn. They think that the brown dwarf might be the outcome of a collision between a Saturn-sized gas giant and a planet about three times the size of Earth. The two smacked into each other and fused, forming one larger world still boiling from the heat generated in the titanic collision475.
Both objects may have come to existence by old remains of (crashed) stars. Later they may have come to orbit each other. 2M1207B may still be hot because of (smaller) old dark matter objects melting together. End January 30 2008]
[December 2004: Recently astronomers observed another object that may show that there is no gap. NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope has found a warm glow coming from a star-like object. The object defies all models of (big bang) star formation; it is fainter than would be expected for a young star. The astronomers theorize that the mystery object is one of three possibilities: the youngest “failed star,” or brown dwarf ever detected; a newborn star caught in a very early stage of development; or something else entirely. They think that the object might represent a different way of forming stars or brown dwarfs. The objects is so dim that previous studies would have missed them261.
The existence of such objects is just what you expect with the above described star formation model within an infinite universe. End December 2004] [March 20 2006: This needs a bit more explanation of course. On this website star formation is considered to take place with certain objects (like planets in our solar system or small stars that have cooled down) assembling gas until the object starts glowing by gravitational forces or lights up as a star that fuses elements. With such a way of looking at star formation all kind of objects (objects that are small or big, with low or high density) can assemble gas that can be around in all kinds of concentrations. Thus all kind of planets (with gas mantles), brown dwarfs and stars can come to existence. End March 20 2006]
[March 20 2006: So far it has been a problem for astronomers to measure the size of brown dwarfs, but recently researchers discovered a pair of brown dwarfs in mutual orbit. The discovery enabled the scientists to weigh and measure the radius of brown dwarfs for the first time, it is the first direct measurement of the radii and masses of brown dwarfs. The bigger of the two brown dwarfs turned out to be 50 times the size of Jupiter, the smaller turned out to be about 30 times the size of Jupiter. In most respects, the new observations conform to established theoretical (big bang) models for brown dwarfs, but, surprisingly, the less massive of the two dwarfs is hotter than its heftier companion.
An explanation, the big bang astronomers say, is that the paired brown dwarfs did not form together in the same coalescing mass of gas and dust, but formed at different times and places, and somehow became companions locked in mutual orbit408. That is along my line of thinking: within an infinite universe all kind of objects develop in all kind of masses, travel through space for long times and often meet another object with which they become gravitationally linked. This way a lot of binaries may have been formed instead of being formed from one gas cloud with no dark matter objects in it to assemble and concentrate gas at certain places, thus forming stars and brown dwarfs as big bang astronomers think.
But the two brown dwarfs may have been formed from one gas cloud as well, i.e. when they originate from different dark matter objects. Jupiter has an iron core, while the two brown dwarfs are hydrogen to their very centers, the researchers say. I wonder if that is true. I think that brown dwarfs may have iron cores too. The iron cores may have been the dark matter objects that assembled gas, thus originating the two brown dwarfs. (Perhaps it is also possible that another element or other elements (heavier than helium) are concentrated at the cores of the brown dwarfs, i.e. dark matter objects originating brown dwarfs(/stars) may consist of different kind of elements than iron.) End March 20 2006]
[March 23 2005: Big bang astronomers have found that the small star OGLE-TR-122b weighs one-eleventh of the mass of the Sun. Although the star is 96 times as massive as Jupiter, it is only 16% larger than Jupiter. This result shows the existence of stars that look strikingly like planets, even from close by, the astronomers say. As all stars, OGLE-TR-122b produces indeed energy in its interior by means of nuclear reactions. However, because of its low mass, this internal energy production is very small. Striking is the fact that exoplanets which are orbiting very close to their host star, the so-called “hot Jupiters”, have radii which may be larger than the newly found star. The radius of exoplanet HD209458b, for example, is about 30% larger than that of Jupiter. It is thus substantially larger than OGLE-TR-122b293.
Also this shows that there may be no gap (7-1). One may expect that the interior of such a small star will have a lot of heavy elements. Understanding stars by assuming that there may be heavy element cores within stars may bring a lot of progress. End March 23 2005]
[October 2004: In a binary system known as EF Eridanus big bang astronomers recently found a strange, inert body that is far too massive to be considered a super-planet where its composition does not match known brown dwarfs and it is far too low in mass to be a star. There's no category for such an object within big bang astronomy256. Again, there is no gap when the formation of stars is understood by dark matter objects of all kind of magnitudes getting their chances to assemble gas. End October 2004]
[June 2004: Recently it was observed that the majority of brown dwarfs are surrounded by dusty disks at an age of a million years or so, which is similar to young stars at the same age. Observations too showed that brown dwarfs also accrete material from surrounding disks the same way as stars do, although at a slower pace. In one intriguing case, astronomers have also found evidence of material spewing out from the poles of a brown dwarf. Such jets have been seen in young stars of the same age, but not until now in brown dwarfs. If confirmed, the presence of jets would further strengthen the case for remarkably similar infancies for brown dwarfs and Sun-like stars150. [July 2004: Recently astronomers found new evidence pointing towards similar ways of formation where it comes to brown dwarfs and Sun-like stars. Within big bang cosmology stars are supposed to form in huge interstellar clouds in which gravity causes clumps of gas and dust to collapse into “seeds”, which then steadily pull in more and more material until they grow to become stars. However, when this process is studied in detail by computer, many simulations fail to produce brown dwarfs. In one alternative that has been proposed recently, the seeds in an interstellar cloud pull on each other through their gravity, causing a slingshot effect and ejecting some of the seeds from the cloud before they have a chance to grow into stars. These small bodies then could be brown dwarfs, according to that hypothesis. But also this alternative is under strain because of the observation of one pair of brown dwarfs orbiting each other at a remarkably wide separation223. End July 2004]
This can be seen as a confirmation of the above mentioned way of star and brown dwarf formation, which are described here as essentially the same. Whether a dark matter object will turn into a star or a brown dwarf when it is fuelled by hydrogen, depends on the magnitude of the dark matter object, the amount of hydrogen available and the competition by other dark matter objects. This is similar to the formation of galaxies out of large concentrations of dark matter objects fuelled by hydrogen, i.e. universal engines and g-galaxies fuelled by hydrogen (4-1). End June 2004]
[May 2004: When hydrogen surrounds and moves to dark matter objects then we won't be able to see this, unless such a system lies before a nearby star. Big stars will attract hydrogen too, but when the hydrogen comes too near it will be blown away by radiation pressure.
There are unusual nebulae that appear to be the subject of strong heating. In three nebulae, astronomers have succeeded in identifying the sources of energetic radiation of the unusual nebulae: some of the hottest, most massive stars ever seen, some of which are double112. Perhaps that the gas in the nebulae is attracted to the massive star as I think dark matter will attract in a much smaller way hydrogen/gas too, which allows the dark matter object to grow until it lights up as a star. Perhaps stars can attract hydrogen/gas until the hydrogen/gas is bounded to the star. The hydrogen/gas then may balance between attraction by gravitational forces from the star as well as radiation pressure by photons coming from the star. Perhaps this is a way red giants can come to existence (5-1). End May 2004]
[July 2004: Perhaps that red giants can come to existence by the merging of two or more stars (or stars plus dark matter objects or multiple dark matter objects merging within a gas cloud, 6-2). Big bang astronomers think that our Sun will expand into a red giant star in roughly five billion years218. They may be right, but perhaps there are other ways (too) to produce a red giant. Especially the thought of an inner core of a star suddenly becoming much hotter and therefore producing stronger radiation pressure (that makes the star expend into a red giant) after the star has been loosing mass for billions of years is something that makes me wonder whether the big bang red giant model is a correct model. Though, perhaps that gravitational shielding (3-2) may cause certain fusion processes to start up at a later stage. End July 2004]
[January 2005: New ultraviolet observations indicate a Milky Way star is spinning nearly 200 times faster than Earth's sun, the probable result of a merger between two sun-like stars whose binary orbit recently collapsed, according to a University of Colorado at Boulder astronomer Thomas Ayres. The yellow giant, known as FK Comae Berenices, or FK Com, is 10 times larger than the sun and is emitting spectacular amounts of X-rays, ultraviolet light and radio waves as it rotates furiously. Dubbed the "King of Spin" by the research team, FK Com is the namesake of a rare class of fast-rotating yellow giants noted for high levels of coronal magnetic activity. FK Com objects are oddballs because most giant stars rotate very slowly. That's why many theorists now believe binary mergers are the best way to explain the existence of these rare, ultra-fast rotators273. End January 2005]
[March 31 2005: The massive star Regulus has 5 times the diameter of our own Sun, and yet it completes a rotation in only 15.9 hours (our own Sun takes a month to rotate once). Regulus is shaped like an egg. According to big bang astronomers it spins at 86% of its breakup speed (which may be wrong when stars harbor heavy metal cores, or what I call dark matter objects).
Regulus too may be a binary merger. But perhaps there is also the possibility that Regulus has come to existence by a binary dark matter system that has attracted hydrogen/gas. Perhaps this way Regulus may harbor two dark matter cores that orbit each other very fast at a very short distance (rotation faster than 15.9 hours?). Gas that surrounds the two cores then may have started rotating too, which is what astronomers may have measured: gas orbiting in 15.9 hours. However, the two dark matter cores may have merged too (before or after the attraction of hydrogen/gas). Regulus may have come to existence by the merging of two stars too, which may have brought the same: two dark matter cores/objects within a gas bulb that orbit each other or two dark matter cores/objects that have merged.
Regulus becomes brighter at its poles than at its equator, a phenomenon previously only detected in binary stars. Researchers have found that the temperature at Regulus' poles is 15,100 degrees Celsius, while the equator's temperature is only 10,000 Celsius. The temperature variation causes the star to be about five times brighter at its poles than at its equator306.
Perhaps the that the temperature differences can be explained with nuclear fusion taking place in or on dark matter cores inside Regulus. With less gas between the poles and the dark matter cores it may be easily explained why Regulus is hotter at its poles. In the case Regulus harbors only one dark matter core then the same explanation may be used to explain why Regulus is hotter at its poles. End March 31 2005]
[July 2004: There are limits where it comes to the magnitudes of dark matter objects that are cool enough to assemble hydrogen. Dark matter objects may produce much radiation pressure as pulsars (6-1), white dwarfs (6-2), X-ray bursters (5-2) or may explode as Type Ia supernovae (5-2). One of the most enduring riddles of stellar physics is217: Why are there no stars that are more luminous than about a million Suns?
The answer may be that there are limits to (cool) dark matter objects (bringing stars by assembling hydrogen) having certain limits where it comes to magnitude. Though, perhaps that exceptions can be made when many smaller dark matter objects merge while assembling hydrogen. However, such merging then may rather produce a Type II supernovae (5-2) than originating a giant star. End July 2004]
[May 3 2005: The Milky Way - like all spiral galaxies - swings gracefully around a central core. Astronomers have known for some time that a “fairy ring” of blue-hot stars dance within a few light-years from the center, but such stars should display expansive low-temperature red giant envelopes according to big bang cosmology330.
With the on this website described star formation in an infinite universe, with star formation by hydrogen gas assembling on cold dark matter cores one expects blue-hot stars to develop in the center of the Milky Way. End May 3 2005]
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, getting heated by heavy metals (heavier than iron) decay, losing mass by heat radiation?
[June 2004: If stars run out of gas to fuse and start cooling down we should see objects that are still glowing. Such objects may be white dwarfs (remnants of hotter stars), but also brown dwarfs (remnants of less hot stars; brown dwarfs may be cooled down white dwarfs too, though it remains to be seen what white dwarfs really are, 6-2). There are brown dwarfs that have been observed to be warm198.
So there may be two classes of brown dwarfs. The ones that are pieced together by (cold) dark matter assembling gas, which may be likely to be cold brown dwarfs, and the ones that descent from stars that have stopped fusing gas, which may be (still) warm brown dwarfs. End June 2004]
[June 2004: Perhaps that within Saturn and Jupiter (very) heavy metals decay, which may explain the (unexpected) large amount of X-radiation from Saturn and Jupiter. Saturn may have X-radiation coming from two sources, the large source very close to its center, the smaller source a little further from its center132. Perhaps that far in the past two large (one a little larger than the other, the larger one residing closest to Saturn's center) celestial objects merged, together with a lot of other smaller (dark) matter objects. The two large objects may contain certain amounts of (very) heavy metals (heavier than iron) that decay, which then may explain the X-radiation from Saturn (and Jupiter). Such mechanism may also explain mysterious hot X-ray producing brown dwarfs114. (Within big bang astronomy planets are thought to generate internal heat by radioactive decay8.)
RX J0806.3+1527 is observed to be a system of two white dwarfs revolving around each other at a distance of only 80,000 km. Each of the stars seems to be about as large as the Earth. The system has the shortest orbital period known for any binary stellar system (that is, in March 2002), 5 minutes. One star is trapped in the strong gravitational grip of the other somewhat heavier star. The orbital motion is very fast - over 1,000 km/sec, and the lighter star apparently always turns the same hemisphere towards its companion, just as the Moon in its orbit around Earth, they are gravitationally locked. Systems in which the orbital period is very short (less than 1 hour) are referred to as AM Canis Venaticorum (AM CVn) systems. According to big bang astronomers it is likely that such systems, after having reached a minimum orbital period of a few minutes, then begin to evolve towards longer orbital periods. Big bang astronomers think that this indicates that RX J0806.3+1527 is now at the very beginning of the “AM CVn phase”200.
Perhaps that such kind of systems later can become a system like the Earth and the Moon (the Moon too spirals away from the Earth, the distance between the Earth and the Moon is 5 times 80,000 km) or a dark matter binary system as described in 7-2 that can bring two planets like the Earth/Mars in a solar system.
But such a system too may cool down and collect gas, dust and dark matter object debris and then merge, thus bringing a planet like Saturn, which may have two merged dark matter objects at its center, as described above (the diameter of Saturn is 120,000 km, which is larger than the 80,000 km distance in the RX J0806.3+1527 system). End June 2004]
[May 2003: Small stars, who are very numerous, turn into red dwarfs. What happens with red dwarfs over extremely long times? Can they become Earth-like, i.e. can our Earth be a former star?
And: if our Earth has originated from a dust cloud, then how can we have something like a gold-vein? If our Earth is originated from gathered dust then one would expect all kind of elements, i.e. minerals, very well mixed, which is not the case. [January 5 2007: Probably this is mostly nonsense, because gold and many other minerals are concentrated on the Earth because of geological processes. Still, I wonder if all concentrations of minerals on Earth can be explained by geological processes, for instance what about uranium? I also wonder if there are concentrations of certain minerals on the Moon and, if indeed, whether or not such concentrations can be explained by geological processes on the Moon. End January 5 2007]
So far it is expected that heavy elements are only formed in supernovae, but perhaps they may also be formed in pulsars (6-1), white dwarfs (6-2), and perhaps also in our Sun or even smaller stars. Right now it is thought (by conventional science) that the Sun (and other stars) is well mixed and that the outer regions of the Sun is representative for the interior of the Sun. This is a paradigm that may be untenable.
Some specialists in this particular field, like professor Manuel41,244, are also convinced that the interior of the Sun is very unlike the composition of the outer layers of the Sun. Also Manuel thinks that the core of the Sun consists of heavy metals (iron according to Manuel).
[January 24 2006: Professor of Radiology Pierre-Marie Robitaille thinks there is a lot of evidence in favor of a condensed matter model of the Sun instead of the now used gaseous models of the Sun397. End January 24 2006]
Jovian planets have a core with heavy elements. Our Sun may have a much bigger core, perhaps that's the reason why it has been able to attract so much hydrogen.
A heavy element core in the Sun may mean that in the interior of the Sun other processes are going on. Those processes may account for not understood phenomena like sunspots, change in latitude of sunspots, sunspot cycles, coronal mass ejections and solar flares (6-1).
Hydrogen “burning” in the Sun may be going on in a shell around a nucleus of heavy elements and this nucleus may have different layers with different compositions. A Population I star may have a bigger nucleus than a Population II star and hence may burn more fiercely (4-4).
There may be different nuclear synthesis processes going on at the same time, for the gravitational pressure in the different layers of a star is getting higher when you go more to the center of a star. There may be a shell with burning hydrogen while in a shell (or shells) more towards the center another nuclear synthesis process (or processes) may be going on (perhaps with a pulsar quality, 6-1).
[August 2004: Though never observed so far, big bang astronomers made theoretical predictions that, if massive enough, some stars can extend their lives by the fusion of carbon into magnesium226. End August 2004]
Thus it may even be that there is no hydrogen burning in our Sun at all. Depending on the thickness of the outward hydrogen layer there may be or may not be hydrogen burning. Perhaps under a relative thin hydrogen layer helium processes into higher elements. Perhaps fusion of even higher elements causes the heat of the Sun.
If there are other processes going on, besides the burning of hydrogen and helium, in (small) stars, like the processing of heavier elements into more heavy elements, and if pulsars and white dwarfs have certain processes going on as mentioned in 6-1 and 6-2, then the dark matter objects that may result from all kinds of stars and white dwarfs and pulsars may have something like the mentioned “gold-veins” (7-1) as on our Earth (think for instance of “reaction-regions” of pulsars, 6-1). Therefore: perhaps we are living on an old star.
(Though perhaps it is also possible that “gold-veins” are the result of (big chunks from) supernovae explosions. Still, the “gold-vein” thought may become a problem for today's way of looking at Solar system formation and thus Earth formation.) End May 2003]
[March 23 2005: Big bang astronomers think that millimeter-sized spheres called chondrules may provide important clues to how the planets formed. Chondrules would compact into larger solid bodies290. But with such small particles compacting into larger spheres one would expect that the minerals/elements of planets are well mixed (the gold-vein problem, 7-1). Fact is that we find certain concentrations of minerals/elements at certain places at our Earth. I think one has to think about much larger objects as the progenitors of planets like our Earth. But perhaps that other planets are well mixed when it comes to the minerals/elements of the planet. Planet formation (i.e. not planets as our Earth) from a lot of small particles may be possible too (7-1). End March 23 2005]
[March 24 2005: Gravity, always an attractive candidate to explain how celestial matter pulls together, was no match for stellar winds, big bang scientists say. The dust needed help coming together fast, in kilometer-wide protoplanets, in the first few million years after a star was born, or the stellar wind would blow it all away.
Micron-wide dust particles encrusted with molecularly gluey ice enabled planets to bulk up like dirty snowballs quickly enough to overcome the scattering force of solar winds. That may be the answer, according to some big bang scientists, when it comes to understanding the formation of a planet like our Earth295.
Still, the above mentioned problem (7-1) is not solved: with such small particles compacting one would expect that the minerals/elements of the Earth are well mixed. End March 24 2005]
Of course our Earth has very little mass if one looks at our Earth as descending from an old star, but what happens over extremely long times if you think of periods of 1050 - 10500 years? For instance: if our Earth descends from a star that has been shining in another galaxy and escaped from that galaxy? Things change if you take a universe in mind that is endless in time and space.
But perhaps things are possible on shorter time scales too, it is something we just don't know yet. In the on this website described universe our Galaxy is very much older than 15 billion years, which will lead to different options, like white dwarfs escaping a galaxy, blackening and shrinking/degrading over enormous times and finally entering a new galaxy, with the possibility of becoming a planet by swinging around a star in the new galaxy (7-1).
[May 2003: Dark matter objects may come from intergalactic space. For instance: they may be extremely old pulsars/white dwarfs, 6-1. About 90% of all stars finally become white dwarfs, which may make white dwarfs good candidates as progenitors of planets as well as progenitors of new stars like Population I stars. End May 2003]
If our Earth is an extremely old star then that may explain the magnetic field of our Earth, being a remnant of the old stars magnetic field (7-1).
[August 2004: The binary system Gamma Cephei, about 45 light-years away in the constellation Cepheus, may be an example of a system with a small star that later may become a planet. The primary star is 1.59 times as massive as the Sun. A planet orbits the primary star at about 2 Astronomical Units (A.U.), a little further than Mars's distance from the Sun, and is 1.76 times as massive as Jupiter. A second, relatively small star orbits the primary star at only 25 to 30 A.U. from the primary star -- about Uranus' distance from the Sun231. The second, relatively small star may become a planet in the future. End August 2004]
[March 23 2005: An international team of astronomers have accurately determined the radius and mass of the smallest core-burning star known until now. The observations were performed in March 2004 with the FLAMES multi-fibre spectrograph on the 8.2-m VLT Kueyen telescope at the ESO Paranal Observatory (Chile). The astronomers found that the dip seen in the light curve of the star known as OGLE-TR-122 is caused by a very small stellar companion, eclipsing this solar-like star once every 7.3 days. This companion is 96 times heavier than planet Jupiter but only 16% larger. It is the first time that direct observations demonstrate that stars less massive than 1/10th of the solar mass are of nearly the same size as giant planets293.
Perhaps that such a small star can become a future planet. End March 23 2005]
[May 2003: Two possible ways of dark matter object/planet formation
Next to dark matter objects (free floating in interstellar and intergalactic space) and planets (dark matter objects tied to stars) descending from old stars, dark matter objects may originate as assemblages of collected dust/asteroids/meteoroids. Perhaps it is possible somehow to distinguish between those two planet-origins. One thing, as mentioned above, may be: perhaps there are planets or moons that have chemical composites that are very equal everywhere on and in the planet or moon (i.e. no “gold-veins”, 7-1, or other conspicuous high concentrations of certain elements), which then may be a sign of originating from (assembled) dust and small dark matter pieces. End May 2003]
Dark matter objects (4-1) may play an important part in star formation. Dark matter objects may attract hydrogen (and dust), which thus can concentrate itself around the dark matter object. Dark matter objects often may have a certain rotation (7-2), which then will show up again in the rotation of stars.
Right now there are problems understanding what causes the burst of star formation8, dark matter being in or entering into a cloud of hydrogen (or hydrogen flowing to dark matter) may be the answer.
Rotating dark matter may attract 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. Thus the original dark matter object and new mass that has fallen onto the dark matter object may be two different rotation layers, this may explain the magnetic fields of stars (also: planets that orbit stars may effect the outer layer of a star as well).
[August 2004: With dark matter objects having their own peculiar rotation and gas and dust having certain momentum all kind of rotation rates become possible for stars. Right now big bang cosmology has problems explaining why some small stars have slow rotation where the majority of small stars have fast rotation238. End August 2004]
[June 2004: A fast-spinning hot star, Achernar (Alpha Eridani), the brightest in the southern constellation Eridanus, is much flatter than expected - its equatorial radius is more than 50% larger than the polar one. Big bang astronomers have problems explaining the flatness of the star188.
Perhaps that when the inside of the star is allowed to have a very big core of heavy elements, i.e. when the star originated by gas accreting on a large dark matter object, theoretical solutions are possible. But also: perhaps that the star originated by two large dark matter objects orbiting each other at a very close distance (7-2). Perhaps then that the dark matter objects within the core have not collided yet into one big core and that this can bring the unusual flatness of the star. End June 2004]
[May 2003: Perhaps a dark matter object does not necessarily have to be rotating. Perhaps thus there may be stars formed with YSOs and without YSOs (7-1). A lot of hydrogen falling on a not or slow rotating dark matter object may form an YSO where fast rotating stars may bring the hydrogen into rotation which may cause that the hydrogen slowly approaches the dark matter object and hence no YSO is formed.
Thus stars descending from YSOs may rotate (predominantly) because of the momentum of the infalling gas where stars not descending from YSOs may rotate (predominantly) because of the momentum of the rotating dark matter. And: perhaps that sometimes the momentum by the infalling hydrogen counteracts the original rotation of a dark matter object, which may originate stars that hardly rotate or don't rotate at all. End May 2003]
Brown dwarfs and Jupiter-like planets may originate in a similar way as here described for stars, thus explaining the magnetic fields of Jovian planets. The magnetic field of the Earth and other terrestrial planets change, which then may be due to different mass-layers from the old star, gradually changing relative to each other. Though magnetic fields of planets may be due too to the Sun's gravitational forces (3-2) working upon the outer layers of the rotating planets.
[May 2003: See also the ideas of professor Ghosh3 about inertial induction. End May 2003]
Right now the star formation model is far from understood, there is lack of a physical understanding of how gas turns into stars.
[May 2003: As mentioned in 6-2: white dwarfs that have cooled down enough will start assembling gas again until they light up. This will be the same for every big enough object that is not so hot that radiation pressure keeps hydrogen from falling on the object. This makes one look in a completely different way at star formation.
Big stars thus can easily be explained, even if they are positioned in space regions with conspicuously high metal concentrations. Some current theories of star formation and certain indirect observations appear to indicate that very heavy stars, with masses more than 20-30 MSun, could not possibly form in metal-rich regions67.
This would be because the strong radiation from nascent stars in such environments would rapidly disperse the remains of the natal cloud and thereby halt any further growth beyond a certain limit. Deprived of “food”, those young stellar objects would be unable to grow beyond a certain, limited class67.
[June 2004: Also less big stars within less metal-rich environments have problems within big bang astronomy with their own luminosity disrupting accretion-disks that are supposed to make the star grow136.
Two possible scenarios for the formation of massive stars are currently proposed by big bang astronomers, by accretion of large amounts of circumstellar material or by collision (coalescence) of protostars of intermediate masses. The new observations favour accretion, i.e. the same process that is active during the formation of stars of smaller masses. The accretion process then must somehow overcome the outward radiation pressure that builds up, following the ignition of the first nuclear processes (e.g., deuterium/hydrogen burning) in the star's interior, once the temperature has risen above the critical value near 10 million degrees187.
Gas accreting on large dark matter objects (or multiple dark matter objects orbiting each other) may solve the accretion problem. End June 2004]
[September 7 2005: Big bang astronomers have studied a young protostar 15 times more massive than the Sun, located more than 2,000 light-years away in the constellation Cepheus. They discovered a flattened disk of material orbiting the protostar. The disk contains 1 to 8 times as much gas as the Sun and extends outward for more than 30 billion miles - eight times farther than Pluto's orbit. The existence of this disk provides clear evidence of gravitational collapse, they say. They think that a disk formed when a spinning gas cloud contracted, growing denser and more compact. The angular momentum of the spinning material would have forced it into a disk shape. The team detected both molecular gas and dust in the flattened structure surrounding the massive protostar. Data also showed a velocity shift due to rotation, supporting the interpretation that the structure is a gravitationally bound disk. Combined with radio observations showing a bipolar jet of ionized gas, a type of outflow often observed in association with low-mass protostars, these results support theoretical big bang models of high-mass star formation via disk accretion rather than big bang models of several low-mass protostars merging. “Merging low-mass protostars wouldn't form a circumstellar disk and a bipolar jet,” the researchers say. “Even if they had circumstellar disks and outflows before the merger, those features would be destroyed during the merger.”354.
Perhaps there is also a possibility that two dark matter objects with gas or two small stars (or a dark matter object with (or without) gas and a small star) have clashed. One object may have come to orbit the protostar while moving inward while the other object may have come to orbit the star closer to the star with a faster velocity and hence moving outward (see also 7-2). Still, massive stars rather may be formed by big dark matter objects attracting much gas as described above. End September 7 2005]
Recently a team of French, Swiss, and Spanish astronomers, using the ESO Very Large Telescope (VLT) directly observed the presence of Wolf-Rayet stars (born with masses of 60-90 MSun or more) within metal-rich regions in some galaxies in the Virgo cluster67.
With current conventional astronomy and current ways of looking at star formation this gives severe problems, but with (very) heavy dark matter objects attracting huge amounts of gas massive stars can easily be formed in metal-rich regions.
Thus the difference between Population I and II stars may caused by: Population I stars originate from gas clouds with higher metal/dust content (conventional view) as well as that Population I stars originate from heavier dark matter objects. In fact, (many of) the dark matter objects from which Population I stars originate may be old blackened Population II stars (4-4, 6-2).
Wolf-Rayet (WR) stars are among the most luminous stars in the galaxy. Perhaps such stars originate from huge dark matter objects that get fuelled by a cloud with much hydrogen/helium. Many WR stars are in binary systems. Dark matter objects (or two groups of multiple dark matter objects orbiting each other), especially old (huge) dark matter objects, too often may be in binary systems (4-3, 7-2), which may explain why many WR stars are in binary systems.
WR stars are helium-rich and hydrogen-deficient. Some white dwarfs will loose helium (6-2), others may gain (that) helium and thus may become WR stars.
But, of course, WR stars may also descend from massive stars like red supergiants, as suggested by big bang scientists68. End May 2003]
[March 24 2005: Big bang astronomers have been uncertain about how large a star can get before it cannot hold itself together and blows apart. They don't know enough about the details of the star-formation process to estimate a star's upper mass. Consequently, theories have predicted stars can be anywhere between 100 to 1,000 times more massive than the sun.
A team of big bang astronomers may have taken an important step toward establishing an upper limit to the masses of stars. Using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, they made the first direct measurement within our Milky Way Galaxy, and concluded stars cannot get any larger than about 150 times the mass of our sun296.
When indeed stars cannot get any larger than about 150 times the mass of our sun then one may wonder why the prediction by big bang theories went up to 1000 times the mass of our sun (within big bang theories only possible with an extremely small percentage of heavy elements in the protostar gas cloud). Perhaps that the answer is: the star formation process needs dark matter objects to assemble hydrogen. With a (big) heavy element core, i.e. big dark matter object, assembling (much) hydrogen for the production of a giant star the protostar sooner will have gas producing nuclear reactions than a pure hydrogen cloud falling together all by itself by gravity. End March 24 2005]
[June 2004: Giant stars may also originate when a very concentrated group of multiple dark matter objects gets fuelled by gas in such a way that the fuelled dark matter objects can't be distinguished from each other anymore (5-1). End June 2004]
[October 27 2005: A mysterious group of massive stars orbit less than a light-year from the Milky Way's central “black hole” (which rather may be an assemblage of very many dark matter objects packed in a very small volume of space, 5-1). The stars are known as Sagittarius A* ( Sgr A*)376. Sagittarius A* may be a very old shrunken galaxy (4-1). If Sgr A* indeed is a very old shrunken galaxy it may contain a large number of dark matter objects (old darkened stars) that merged while attracting hydrogen. This may have caused massive stars to come to existence. End October 27 2005]
With an infinite universe there will always be metals everywhere, which may be the reason why there are no Population III stars. But also: an hydrogen stream/cloud originating from a hydrogen production system as described with radio loud activity in 5-2 may always be contaminated with elements heavier than hydrogen and helium (“metals”), because radio loud activity may not/never pour out 100% HII and electrons.
Though, recently a star in our Milky Way named HE 0107-5240, with about 0.8 solar mass, was found to have a metal content of 1/200,000 the metal content of the Sun197. This can be seen as evidence that radio loud AGN activity can bring quite pure HII, with little heavy metal content (though, there may be other ways of hydrogen production too, 5-2, 3-2). The discovery of the low metal star clearly demonstrates that stars with masses slightly less than the Sun can form from very metal-poor gas (according to big bang cosmology, I see such stars as formed with the aid of dark matter objects). This is unexpected for big bang cosmologists, as their most current theoretical calculations indicate that it is very difficult to form low-mass stars shortly after the big bang, because metals are needed to efficiently cool gas clouds as they contract into stars. But now HE 0107-5240 “reveals that Nature has found a way to achieve the necessary cooling” they say197. I see it as evidence for the necessity of dark matter objects to trigger star formation.
Dark matter objects may be around in all kind of magnitudes, because all kind of former stars have blackened with all kind of heavy element cores (i.e. dark matter objects descending from stars, 7-1). And: dark matter objects that descend from dust/smaller dark matter pieces (produced by supernovae, or produced by clashing dark matter objects, 4-1), probably will have all kind of magnitudes too, depending on the amount of material that assembles into one dark matter object.
With dark matter objects having al kind of magnitudes (and all kind of rotation rates, 6-2) stars that descend from those dark matter objects will also have all kind of magnitudes (and rotation rates).
[June 2004: I think that gas assembling around dark matter objects, thus causing star formation, is going on in star clusters and their associated nebula all through the (spiral arms of the) Milky Way, for instance the nebulosity known as NGC 7129, which is located at a distance of 3300 light-years in the constellation Cepheus139. End June 2004]
[May 2003: Strong concentrations of dark matter may have pulsar (6-1) qualities or novae qualities (5-2). Thus it may be that the cores of stars may have certain pulsar/novae qualities too, which may explain certain variable star types, like ZZ Ceti Stars, RR Lyrae stars, RS Canum Venaticorum stars, Cepheids or Dwarf Cepheids.
Though, also the (original) rotation of the dark matter object may be very important (6-2). Strong rotation means strong centrifugal forces. Slow rotation means weak centrifugal forces and hence pulsating activity may arise easier. And: the way new mass falls in may make a difference (7-1).
[June 2004: Recently a star flared (lightning up McNeil's Nebula). Its outburst may not be the first time the star has flared, an inspection of archival photographic plates revealed that a similar event took place in 1966, when the star flared and faded again into its enshrouding gas120. Perhaps that pulsating qualities by dark matter can explain such flares. End June 2004]
Massive dark matter objects assembling relatively little hydrogen (because the region has relatively little hydrogen) may originate relatively small stars that shine very bright: subdwarf O and B stars. The origin of those stars is still not clear in current astronomy.
Bipolar outflows of YSOs are not understood either. But with a dark matter object in the core of an YSO the problem may be easily solved: massive streams of gas (streams that have, at least partly, adjusted themselves to the rotation of the dark matter object, thus falling on the dark matter object with streams in a form like the spiral arms of our Galaxy) fall on the rotating dark matter object, streams that can't be completely hold by the dark matter object, and thus part of the gas flows out of the YSO along the rotation axis of the dark matter object. [June 2004: A similar mechanism, i.e. material flowing out along the rotation axis, is found with the radio loud process (5-2), matter poured out by galaxies (5-2) and matter poured out of Seyfert 2s (5-1). Matter gets poured out at the poles because the poles are relatively “thin” or “weak” due to rotation. End June 2004]
Right now it is thought that dust around YSOs is pushed outward from the star8. But the dust just may come later than the hydrogen ( 4-3).
Perhaps that multiple nuclear fusion processes can go on in stars in different layers when stars have layered structures. Perhaps that in the deepest inner parts of very big stars even fusion to elements higher than iron can occur (a cooling process, 6-1). End May 2003]
[May 28 2005: Big bang astronomers say that stars that start off their lives with ten or more times the Sun's mass are capable of “burning” hydrogen into helium, helium into carbon, and so on up to the final nuclear ash, iron334. End May 28 2005]
[May 2004: Peering into a giant molecular cloud in the Milky Way galaxy - known as W49 - astronomers from the European Southern Observatory (ESO) have discovered a whole new population of very massive newborn stars. Altogether, the ESO astronomers were able to identify more than one hundred heavy-weight stars inside W49A, with masses greater than 15 to 20 times the mass of our Sun. Among these, about thirty are located within a W49 region called W49A and about ten in each of three other clusters within W49. The presence of such a large number of very massive stars spread over the entire W49 region suggests that star formation in the various regions of W49A must have happened rather simultaneously from different seeds and not, as some theories within big bang cosmology propose, by a “domino-typefood” chain effect where stellar winds of fast particles and the emitted radiation of newly formed massive stars trigger another burst of star formation in the immediate neighbourhood85.
The presence of such a large number of very massive stars spread over the entire W49 region can be seen as a confirmation of the here described way of star formation with dark matter objects collecting gas. End May 2004]
[June 2004: Of course, it remains to be seen whether or not it is (totally) impossible for a cloud of gas and dust to contract and become a star without the aid of a dark matter object triggering the contraction of the gas/dust cloud. Different ways of star formation may coexist as well as different ways of galaxy formation (5-3) and solar system formation (7-2) may coexist. End June 2004]
[May 11 2006: Space is littered with giant clouds of gas. Occasionally, regions within these clouds collapse to form stars. One of the major questions for big bang astronomers is why some clouds produce high- and low-mass stars, whilst others form only low-mass stars418. Perhaps clouds can collapse into stars without the aid of dark matter objects and hence become low-mass stars, whilst where there are dark matter objects a collapsing cloud of gas can produce high-mass stars (triggered by dark matter objects) and low-mass stars (produced by collapsing clouds, without the aid of dark matter objects). On the other hand: there may be a lot of minor dark matter objects that may produce only low-mass stars, whilst other groups of dark matter objects in a particular region of space consist of minor dark matter objects producing low-mass stars and major dark matter objects producing high-mass stars. End May 11 2006]
[March 24 2005: Observations have marked the first clear detection of X-rays from a precursor to a star, called a Class 0 protostar, far earlier in a star's evolution than most (big bang) experts in this field thought possible. The big bang researchers who did the observations say that the surprise detection of X-rays from such a cold object reveals that matter is falling toward the protostar core 10 times faster than expected from gravity alone294.
When a dark matter object assembles the gas then: 1. the X-rays may come from the dark matter object (7-1). 2. if matter falls in very fast indeed (explaining the X-rays) then the speed of the matter may be explained by strong gravitational attraction because of the (massive) dark matter object (with heavy elements). End March 24 2005]
The planets in our Solar System may have been old dark matter objects floating through space, attracted by the nucleus of our Galaxy and thus getting some velocity but also having its own peculiar velocity (i.e. when coming from outside the Galaxy).
Planets may originate and come from outside our Galaxy (outboard dark matter objects, 4-1, 4-3, 6-1), originating from old stars or dust/smaller dark matter pieces, or they may originate from old stars or dust/small dark matter pieces in the spiral arms of our Galaxy (inboard dark matter objects). [July 2004: The old dark matter objects may also be old darkened Population I stars that come out of the dark matter halo (4-4) of our Milky Way. End July 2004]
Whether the planets were formed outside or inside the spiral arms: (certain) dark matter objects may orbit the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy a little faster or slower than stars, which may be important for solar system formation.
Our Population I Sun may have originated from a hydrogen cloud and an old massive dark matter object, both moving around the nuclear bulge of our Galaxy. The hydrogen may have moved faster (4-3) and then have adjusted its speed to the dark matter object which thus may have speeded up. Also: the object/star then may be attracted stronger to the nuclear bulge because the density of the dark matter object has become lower (by assembling hydrogen) (see 3-2). Thus most small dark matter objects (that may become planets) may have a lower velocity than stars.
But it may also be possible that dark matter objects orbit the Galactic nucleus faster than the stars, for the massive dark matter objects (with higher densities) that originate stars may have lower velocities than smaller objects (with lower densities) that can end up as planets.
When dark matter objects have different velocities than stars then dark matter objects may swing themselves in orbits around stars, thus becoming planets and forming solar systems. A “cloud” of dark matter objects may have passed our Sun (or vice versa) and hence part of the dark matter objects may have been “caught” by our Sun and therefore our Solar System may have come to existence (thus perhaps in a relatively 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. Thus velocity differences between stars and dark matter objects may be in the order of the velocities of our planets around the Sun.
[January 21 2006: An international team of astronomers have discovered a new large object in the Kuiper Belt; a region of the Solar System beyond the orbit of Neptune. Currently 58 astronomical units from the Sun, the new object never approaches closer than 50 AU, because its orbit is close to circular. Because this new object's orbit is close to circular the big bang astronomers have difficulty explaining its orbit. Complicating the problem, the object's orbit also has an extreme tilt, being inclined (tilted) at 47 degrees to the rest of the Solar System386.
Perhaps the (dark matter) object came into our solar system because it drifted trough interstellar space as a “lonely cowboy” until gravity of our sun made it swing into our solar system. End January 21 2006]
[November 13 2006: Astronomers have detected a new faint companion to the star HD 3651, already known to host a planet. This new companion, a brown dwarf, is the faintest known companion of an exoplanet host star imaged directly so far. HD 3651 is a star slightly less massive than the Sun, located 36 light-years away. For several years, it has been known to harbour a planet less massive than Saturn, sitting closer to its parent star than Mercury is from the Sun: the planet accomplishes a full orbit in 62 days. The newly found companion, HD 3651B, is 16 times further away from HD 3651 than Neptune is from the Sun. The planet is very close, while the newly found brown dwarf companion revolves around the star 1500 times farther away than the planet. According to big bang astronomers this system is the first imaged example that planets and brown dwarfs can form around the same star439.
Perhaps it is more logical to think that the brown dwarf companion has swung itself around the star and thus was not formed the way big bang astronomers think exoplanets form around stars, i.e. by coming into existence from disks of dust circling around stars. End November 13 2006]
[November 2004: The Sun and most stars near it follow an orderly, almost circular orbit around the centre of our galaxy, the Milky Way. Using data from ESA's Hipparcos satellite, a team of European astronomers has now discovered several groups of “rebel” stars that move in peculiar directions, mostly towards the galactic centre or away from it, running like the spokes of a wheel. These rebels account for about 20% of the stars within 1000 light-years of the Sun, itself located about 25 000 light-years away from the centre of the Milky Way. The data show that rebels in the same group have little to do with each other. They have different ages so, according to big bang scientists, they cannot have formed at the same time nor in the same place. Instead, they must have been forced together258.
Thus, with (all kind of?) objects moving in different directions it may be likely that quite some dark matter objects can swing themselves around stars during the lifetime of galaxies. End November 2004]
[May 2004: NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory has confirmed that close encounters between stars form X-ray emitting, double-star systems in dense globular star clusters. They found that the number of X-ray binaries is closely correlated with the rate of encounters between stars in the clusters. Their conclusion is that the binaries are formed as a consequence of these encounters86. The stars in a globular cluster are often only about a tenth of a light year apart. For comparison, the nearest star to the Sun, Proxima Centauri, is 4.2 light years away. With so many stars moving so close together, interactions between stars occur frequently in globular clusters. The stars, while rarely colliding, do get close enough to form binary star systems or cause binary stars to exchange partners in intricate dances86.
When dark matter objects are numerous in our spiral galaxy then there is quite a chance for dark matter objects to have close encounters with stars, which may explain solar system formation. A shrunken and relatively old spiral galaxy like our Milky Way then is likely to have more solar systems than relatively young elliptical galaxies. [June 11 2005: Though, if ellipticals descend from very old darkened, shrunken and collided (clusters of) galaxies then perhaps there still can be many (small) dark matter objects in ellipticals? End June 11 2005]
Observations by NASA's Uhuru X-ray satellite in the 1970's showed that globular clusters seemed to contain a disproportionately large number of X-ray binary sources compared to the Galaxy as a whole. Normally only one in a billion stars is a member of an X-ray binary system containing a neutron star, whereas in globular clusters, the fraction is more like one in a million. The present research confirms earlier suggestions that the chance of forming an X-ray binary system is dramatically increased by the congestion in a globular cluster86.
A shrunken and relatively old spiral galaxy like our Milky Way then is likely to have more binary stars than a relatively young elliptical galaxy. End May 2004]
The terrestrial planets in our Solar System may have come into our Solar System without a gas coat or they may have been stripped of their gas coat by the Sun when they came into the Solar System with a gas coat (gas then would go away from the Sun because of radiation pressure).
[June 2004: Recently it was discovered that the well-known extrasolar planet HD 209458b, provisionally nicknamed Osiris, has gas evaporating at an immense rate, i.e. atmospheric “blow off” is occurring. The planet's outer atmosphere is extended and heated so much by the nearby star that it starts to escape the planet's gravity. Hydrogen, carbon and oxygen boil off in the planet's upper atmosphere under the searing heat of the star146. End June 2004]
[December 2003: There is another possibility. The terrestrial planets may have had a gas coat when they entered the Solar System, but this gas coat may have been pulled of by the Sun before the Sun started to fuse hydrogen into helium, i.e. before radiation pressure by photons coming from the Sun came to the front. Thus the Sun may have “stripped” the terrestrial planets by gravity and then gas from the terrestrial planets would have gone to the Sun. End December 2003]
[January 2004: There is another possibility. All planets may have been without a gas coat within the (preliminary) Solar System. The moment this preliminary system got “fuelled” by hydrogen (thus bringing our blackened “Sun” back to a new (Population I) star stage) the Jovian planets may have gotten their own gas coat. End January 2004]
Dark matter objects coming into our Solar System without a gas coat may seem strange, for then it would be such a coincidence that all terrestrial planets are close to the Sun. But there may be (another) reason why we find terrestrial planets close to our Sun, but no Jovian planets and why we find Jovian planets but no terrestrial planets beyond a certain distance from the Sun: 3-2.
[June 2004: Of the first 100 stars found to harbor planets, more than 30 stars host a Jupiter-sized world in an orbit smaller than Mercury's, whizzing around its star in a matter of days (as opposed to our solar system where Jupiter takes 12 years to orbit the Sun). Although Jupiter-sized worlds have been found orbiting incredibly close to their parent stars, such giant planets could not have formed in their current locations where it concerns big bang solar system formation out of a protoplanetary disk. The oven-like heat of the nearby star and dearth of raw materials would have prevented any large planet from coalescing. Explaining how such planets got there is a puzzle for big bang astronomy157.
It is easily explained with the way of solar system formation described on this webpage. End June 2004]
[September 3 2007: An international team of astronomers have found the largest known exoplanet. The exoplanet is about 70 percent bigger than Jupiter, but less massive, making it a planet of extremely low density. Its mean density is only about 0.2 grams per cubic centimeter. Because of the planet's relatively weak pull on its upper atmosphere, some of the atmosphere probably escapes in a comet-like tail. The exoplanet is called TrES-4 and it orbits its host star in three and a half days. Being only about 4.5 million miles from its home star, the planet is also very hot, about 1,600 Kelvin. TrES-4 is a theoretical problem for big bang astronomers. It is larger relative to its mass than current big bang models of superheated giant planets can presently explain465.
Of course a planet like TrES-4 can not be formed so close to its host star. It is therefore likely that the planet was formed away from its host star and was captured later by gravity by the star. The problem then is how could a gas cloud contract by gravity and form TrES-4? Simply by the mechanism suggested on this website: a sole dark matter object assembling gas in interstellar space. End September 3 2007]
[May 2004: A comparison of 754 nearby stars like our Sun - some with planets and some without - has shown that the more iron and other metals there are in a star, the greater the chance it has a companion planet. Data showed that stars like the Sun, whose metal content is considered typical of stars in our neighborhood, have a 5 to 10 percent chance of having planets. Stars with three times more metal than the Sun have a 20 percent chance of harboring planets, while those with 1/3 the metal content of the Sun have about a 3 percent chance of having planets. The 29 most metal-poor stars in the sample, all with less than 1/3 the Sun's metal abundance, had no planets90.
When Population I stars are older stars than Population II stars as argued in 4-4 then it is no surprise that stars with higher metal content have a greater chance to have a companion planet. The older the star the more time it had to find a companion planet, but also: environments where Population I stars originate are likely to have more dark matter objects that can have close encounters with stars and thus become planets of those stars. And: Population I stars have more mass, thus attracting more dark matter objects.
When somewhere many dark matter objects are around that can swing themselves around stars then a lot of dust (due to clashing of dark matter objects) can be expected to be around too, such dust then can fall to stars thus enriching those stars with heavy elements. [June 2004: And also enriching those stars with disks containing dust (7-2). Therefore it may be no surprise that stars with a higher heavy metal content have dust disks rather than stars with a lower heavy metal content171. End June 2004] End May 2004]
[May 2004: Some astronomers have argued that globular clusters cannot contain planets because globular clusters are deficient in heavier elements, a conclusion that was supported in 1999 when NASA's Hubble Space Telescope failed to find close-orbiting Jupiter-type planets around the stars of the globular cluster 47 Tucanae. However, recently the Hubble Space Telescope precisely measured the mass of a planet orbiting a peculiar pair of burned-out stars, a white dwarf and a pulsar, in the crowded core of the globular star cluster M4, located 7,200 light-years away99.
According to big bang astronomers the Hubble measurement offers evidence that (big bang) planet formation processes are quite robust and efficient at making use of a small amount of heavier elements99. I think the observation is rather be seen as a confirmation of the here presented way of solar system formation in an infinite universe. A globular cluster in an infinite universe can have dark matter objects that can swing themselves around an odd couple like a pulsar plus a white dwarf. End May 2004]
[May 2004: Big bang astronomers expected planetary systems (solar systems) to be quite alike because within big bang astronomy those systems are supposed to originate from similar clouds of gas and dust. The extrasolar planetary systems now known to exist have very different properties, planetary systems are much more diverse than ever imagined by big bang astronomy100.
Dark matter objects within an infinite universe model can be very different and so with the here described way of solar system formation one can expect to find solar systems that differ very much from each other. End May 2004]
[June 2004: There may be multiple ways of solar system formation (7-2). End June 2004]
[January 2005: Solar systems may flatten because dark matter objects that once flew into the solar system may have adjusted their plane of orbiting more and more to the rotation of the Sun. Thus all planets in our solar system more or less may have ended up in the same plane orbiting the Sun, i.e. perpendicular to the rotation axis of the Sun. The planets still may have a bit of the plane in which they originally started orbiting the Sun, which may explain why all planets in our solar system orbit in slightly different planes around the Sun. The older the solar system the more the planets then may be likely orbit in the same plane (4-4). End January 2005]
[June 11 2005: Gas clouds, stars and dark matter objects travel in a disk around the center of the Milky Way, so it is normal that stars have their rotation axis perpendicular to this disk and that dark matter objects swirl towards stars in a disk parallel to the disk of the Milky Way. End June 11 2005]
[September 2004: Big bang planetary formation models are far from being able to account for all the amazing diversity observed amongst the extrasolar planets that have been discovered in recent years252. A European team of astronomers recently discovered the lightest known planet orbiting a star other than the sun. The new exoplanet orbits the bright star mu Arae, which is about 50 light years away from the Earth. The exoplanet has a mass of only 14 times the mass of the Earth and completes a full revolution around mu Area in 9.5 days. Big bang astronomers have trouble explaining this observation because of the limiting way they look at planet formation: material in a disk surrounding a star accreting into a planet252. Dark matter objects swinging themselves around stars opens up very many new ways of understanding the diversity observed amongst the extrasolar planets. End September 2004]
[November 13 2006: Big bang researchers have discovered a hole in a disk of gas and dust encircling a star which is about the size of the orbit of Saturn. For big bang astronomers it is difficult to explain the existence of such a big hole. They think that the disk of gas is pushed away from the star by intense solar radiation443.
With planets swinging themselves around stars one can think of another explanation. Large chunks of rocks and/or dark matter objects/sole planets may swirl towards the star, bringing gravitationally attached gas and dust with them. Therefore the gas may slowly circle towards the star instead of being pushed away from the star. End November 13 2006]
[December 2004: Recent planet observations revealed the possibility of a planet on the order of only 100,000 to half a million years old, which is causing problems for the big bang way of looking at solar system formation262.
Looking at solar system formation with dark matter objects swinging themselves around stars is likely to solve these problems easily. End December 2004]
[March 27 2006: The current big bang picture of how planetary systems form is as follows: i) dust grains coagulate to form planetesimals of up to 1 km in diameter; ii) the runaway growth of planetesimals leads to the formation of ~100 to 1000 km-sized planetary embryos; iii) these embryos grow in an "oligarchic" manner, where a few large bodies dominate the formation process, and accrete the surrounding and much smaller planetesimals. These "oligarchs" form terrestrial planets near the central star and planetary cores of ten terrestrial masses in the giant planet region beyond 3 astronomical units (AU). However, these theories fail to describe the formation of gas giant planets in a satisfactory way. Gravitational interaction between the gaseous protoplanetary disc and the massive planetary cores causes them to move rapidly inward over about 100,000 years in what we call the "migration" of the planet in the disc. The prediction of this rapid inward migration of giant protoplanets is a major problem, since this timescale is much shorter than the time needed for gas to accrete onto the forming giant planet. Theories predict that the giant protoplanets will merge into the central star before planets have time to form. This makes it very difficult for big bang astronomers to understand how they can form at all411.
Looking at solar system formation with dark matter objects swinging themselves around stars solves these problems. End March 27 2006]
[February 1 2008: With big bang solar system formation astronomers expect the (old primal) dust from the more outer regions of the solar system to be different than the (more altered by accretion) dust from the more inner regions of our solar system. When they tried to measure this it turned out that there was no difference, much to their surprise480. With planets swinging themselves around stars you expect no dust-difference because their is no old gas cloud and therefore no old dust disc from which the planets and comets and asteroids developed from by accretion. End February 1 2008]
[February 27 2005: There are more problems with the big bang models for planet formation284.
A problem I have not read about or heard of so far is the following. If all planets and moons of our Solar System originated from the same cloud of gas and dust then the planets and moons of Solar System should resemble each other very much where it comes to their chemical compounds, but this is obviously not the case. End February 27 2005]
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, 7-2), 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 because our Solar System has formed itself out of a rotating cloud, as suggested by conventional science, but with the above mentioned swing around idea it may also be a necessity for a solar system to become stable and enduring.
Planets orbiting the Sun in the other direction will soon be attracted to the other planets and thus planets will either flow out of the Solar System, fall on the Sun or clash with another planet (7-2). 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 a planet that enters a solar system and the shortest distance between the line of its incoming direction and the star. This correlation may bring Kepler's three laws. (This may mean that the incoming speed of a planet and the direction of its speed and the distance between the line of the planet's incoming direction and the star may have to be of specific magnitudes for the planet in order to start orbiting the star. Too fast and the planet leaves the solar system, too slow and the planet falls into the star. The mass and the density of the dark matter object will play a role too, 3-2.)
Also: the moment an incoming planet starts orbiting the Sun (or starts deviating from its original line of direction), speed and direction of the incoming planet are accelerated and therefore our planets may orbit in ellipses.
[May 3 2005: Instead of the nice circular orbits our nine planets enjoy, most of the more than 160 extrasolar planets detected in the last decade have eccentric orbits: so elongated that many come in very close to the central star and then go out much further away328. Such elongated eccentric orbits are easily explained with planets coming into a solar system from outside the solar system, e.g. not coming into existence from a protoplanetary disc as now is thought by big bang astronomers. End May 3 2005]
[May 2003: Incoming planets also explain the precession of planets in our Solar System.
[June 11 2005: Dark matter objects that fly into solar systems will have a certain speed, direction and mass when they are going to stay, or else they fly out of the solar system or fall on the star. This means that there is a relation between the strength of the gravity of the star and the speed of the planet, the mass of the planet and the distance of the planet to the star. Right now the theory of relativity calculates the recession of the planets with the strength of the gravity of the Sun. With the here mentioned dark matter objects flying into the Sun one will come to calculate with the strength of the gravity of the Sun too. So I guess a model can be found that explains the precession of the planets with dark matter objects flying into solar systems. End June 11 2005]
Newtonian gravity is corrected by Assis2, Ghosh3 and various authors in Pushing Gravity5, thus predicting the precession of Mercury correctly too. End May 2003]
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 (I don't mention “old” Population II stars versus “young” Population I stars here, 4-4).
Perhaps stars too can originate from a binary (or triple) dark matter systems (with 2 or 3 dark matter objects very close to each other) sucking up hydrogen, after which the binary (or triple) system merges into one system that has a strong rotation rate and forms the core of a new star.
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.
And if so then 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, 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, and vice versa: the stars will have a certain influence on the core.
[May 2003: See also the books by Ghosh3 and Assis2, in which gravitational inertial forces play a substantial part. End May 2003]
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 very much 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 craters8, 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)8. 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 marias, 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 field8.
Spherical large moons circling the Earth, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune may have been circling around the planets before the planets came into the Solar System.
[February 2005: Big bang astronomers have learned that planets may also circle celestial bodies almost as small as planets. The Spitzer Space Telescope has spotted a dusty disc of planet-building material around an extraordinarily low-mass brown dwarf that is only 15 times the mass of Jupiter. Previously, the smallest brown dwarf known to host a planet-forming disc was 25 to 30 times more massive than Jupiter. There may be a host of miniature solar systems in which planets orbit brown dwarfs, the researchers say. They think that longer searches with Spitzer could reveal discs around brown dwarfs below 10 Jupiter masses279.
The Jupiter system, i.e. Jupiter with all its moons, may have been a former “miniature solar system” that was captured by our Sun (perhaps together with the Saturn system, 7-2). End February 2005]
Perhaps that a system like Jupiter and its (larger) moons once was a solar system itself. And: perhaps that our Solar System once only had the terrestrial planets orbiting the Sun; terrestrial planets which were much further away from the Sun than they are now and which were Jovian-type planets with a gas coat.
Perhaps our (once Population II?) 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 thus their gas coats were stripped of by the Sun) and meanwhile new Jovian planets having entered the new Solar System.
Perhaps gravity causes shrinking of the Sun (by triggering fusion) as well as shrinking of the orbits of planets (by inertial forces, 3-2, 7-1) in a fine tuned equilibrium and hence perhaps solar systems may be very enduring.
[May 2004: Perhaps that another way of looking at the Jupiter system is better. Dark matter objects from interstellar space first start circling around the Sun and at a certain moment they are captured by a planet. Then certain ways of thinking by big bang astronomers can be used to explain, for instance, the 60 moons of Jupiter and the 30 moons of Saturn, and why some of those moons have prograde orbits - revolving in the same direction as the planet - while the vast majority have retrograde orbits108.
The moons of Jupiter and Saturn can be divided into two groups - regular and irregular. Regular moons have a roughly circular orbit around their planet and big bang astronomers believe them to have been formed there during the early history of the (big bang way of looking at) Solar System formation. Irregular moons have an orbit that is highly elliptical, orbiting the planet at a distance of many millions of miles. These are believed to have originally encircled the Sun and to have been subsequently captured by the planet they now orbit108.
Perhaps that regular moons have been captured by Jupiter and Saturn before Jupiter and Saturn came into the Solar System where irregular moons were captured (“stolen” from the Sun) by Jupiter and Saturn after the planets had entered the Solar System. End May 2004]
Many stars in the neighborhood of our Solar System are part of binary systems. With dark matter objects descending from stars the dark matter objects therefore also may be often in binary systems.
And: galaxies too are often part of binary systems, as well as Seyferts (4-3) and, perhaps, also clusters.
Matter attracts other matter and starts swirling around each other, often in binary systems (4-3). The same may be the case with dark matter objects.
Thus many binary dark matter objects may have been circling around each other in binary systems for very long times and may have approached each other more and more until the objects 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.
[September 5 2006: Big bang astronomers have discovered an approximately seven-Jupiter-mass companion to an object that is itself only twice as hefty. Both objects have masses similar to those of extra-solar giant planets, but they are not in orbit around a star - instead they appear to circle each other. The existence of such a double system puts strong constraints on big bang formation theories of free-floating planetary mass objects431.
Binary planets is what you expect within an infinite universe where dark matter objects (single planets) are around a lot and have plenty of time to become gravitationally attached to another (single) object. End September 5 2006]
[May 2003: Orbiting periods can be very small: Nova V1500 Cygni 1975 is member of a binary system with an orbital period of about 3 hour8.
RS Canum Venaticorum (RS CVn) stars are in binary systems. A typical orbital period is about seven days; however, periods range from 0.5 days to a few months. In most RS CVn systems the stars are synchronously locked by tidal forces, so that the rotational period of each is equal to the orbital period8. End May 2003]
When the orbit periods and the rotation periods of dark matter partners are the same and if they are in the magnitude of the sidereal rotation periods of the planets in our Solar System then: the partners of the binary system are relatively close to each other and may remain a binary system when entering the Solar System, i.e. it may not be 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 may be more likely that it will either escape the Solar System or fall on the Sun than that it starts 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:
| Sidereal Rotation Period |
Mass 1024 kg |
Obliquity (degrees)* |
Eccentricity | Inclination to Ecliptic |
|
| Mercury | 58.7 days | 0.33 | 0.0 | 0.206 | 7.000 |
| Venus | 243 days | 4.87 | 177.4 | 0.007 | 3.39 |
| Earth | 23h 56m | 5.97 | 23.5 | 0.017 | 0.00 |
| Mars | 24h 37m | 0.64 | 25.2 | 0.093 | 1.85 |
| Jupiter | 9h 50m | 1900 | 3.1 | 0.048 | 1.31 |
| Saturn | 10h 14m | 569 | 26.7 | 0.056 | 2.49 |
| Uranus | 17h 14m | 87 | 98 | 0.047 | 0.77 |
| Neptune | 16h 3m | 103 | 29 | 0.009 | 1.77 |
| Pluto | 6.4 days | 0.01 | 122 | 0.249 | 17.15 |
* 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 rotation 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 relatively less mass (and with a lower density, thus being stronger influenced by inertial gravity forces, 3-2).
The fact that Uranus slowed down relatively 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 relatively 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 relatively 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 relatively high eccentricity of Mars relative to the Earth may be due to the Earth having almost ten times as much mass than Mars.
[February 2004: The heavier partner adjusts itself most strongly to a certain orbit around the Sun, meanwhile the lighter partner adjusts itself (more) to the heavier partner (than the other way round), resulting in a larger eccentricity for the lighter partner. End February 2004]
The chemical composition and internal structures of Uranus and Neptune resemble each other8, which may be due to the possible fact that they once were a binary system (perhaps once Uranus and Neptune were two stars that originated from the same gas cloud, very long ago, 7-1).
Also Jupiter and Saturn have chemical and physical characteristics that resemble8 and the same goes for the Earth and Mars8.
And: Neptune's magnetic axis, like Uranus, differences very much from the planets rotation axis8. 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, 7-1.)
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 year8).
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 Earth8.
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).
[May 2003: Last year I found that professor Ghosh3 too explains the retardation of the Earth's rotation with the Sun causing retardation by inertial forces. End May 2003]
[September 7 2005: Whether it is the Moon or the Sun that is slowing down the Earth's rotation, such slowing down may explain why the inner core of the Earth rotates faster than the outer core, as was measuerd recently353. The inner core has a higher density and therefore may be slowed down less (3-2). End September 7 2005]
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 relatively more powerful when the binary system is further away from the Sun).
Therefore it may not be a coincidence 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 relatively 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 the original mutual orbiting velocities that disrupted them were stronger.
The fact that the Earth and Mars are relatively 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 redshift16, or: the greater their orbiting velocities. And so: the closer the planets originally were, the bigger their orbiting velocities 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 methods8).
This may mean that the Earth is orbiting the Sun much less then 4.6 billion years, i.e. if the Earth's (and Moon's) crust solidified before the Earth came into the Solar System.
[May 2003: Of course, as mentioned in 7-1, if the Earth is an old star then the Earth is extremely old. End May 2003]
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 one may also argue: when the Earth and Mars were a binary system entering the Solar System at a certain time 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 (and perhaps even melt the inside of the Earth by tidal forces) which would bring us back to 4.6 billion years. (The heat inside the Earth may be due to decay of heavy (heavier than iron) metals too, 5-2.)
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. (Of course, 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 that entered our Solar System and started orbiting the Sun as shown in Fig. 7-3-I (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 then may 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. A clash may have caused the asteroid belt.
Figure 7-3-III. A way Roid may have become Mercury.
Such a 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.
[May 2003: Shepard and Jewitt recently have discovered many small new moons orbiting Jupiter retrogate69. Explaining such retrogate velocities is a severe problem for conventional astronomy. The (presumed) clash between Astor and Roid may solve this problem. End May 2003]
[April 12 2006: According to current big bang models of planetary formation, Mercury has too much mass. A new explanation proposes that Mercury was created from a much larger parent planet that collided with a giant asteroid 4.5 billion years ago. Astronomers from the University of Bern ran various scenarios modeling early versions of Mercury412. End April 12 2006]
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 remains 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 relatively 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 are the two planets that would have been most close to the point of the clash (and further away from the Sun), 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 character8 (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.
[January 2005: Also big bang astronomers speculate about the evolution of Pluto and Charon with a giant impact in the past275. End January 2005]
[July 25 2005: The star BD +20 307 is shrouded by a very dusty environment. Big bang astronomers believe that the warm dust is from recent collisions of rocky bodies at distances from the star comparable to that of the Earth from the Sun343. So I am not the only one thinking about the possibility that rocky bodies can clash. End July 25 2005]
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.
[March 2004: Of course, if dark matter objects that later become planets or moons can come into our Solar System out of interstellar space and swing themselves around our Sun or around a planet then small bodies like asteroids, comets and meteorites may come out of interstellar space too. With space probes 3 comets have been watched closely so far. All 3 comets are completely different. This is no surprise when comets can come out of interstellar space. End March 2004]
[September 10 2005: When Deep Impact smashed into comet Tempel 1 on July 4, 2005, it released ingredients. These ingredients include many standard comet components, such as silicates, or sand. But there were also surprise ingredients, such as clay and chemicals in seashells called carbonates. These compounds were unexpected because they are thought to require liquid water to form359.
Perhaps these surprise ingredients can be seen as evidence for clashing planets producing comets, asteroids and dust. If so then it is no surprise that comets and asteroids are more alike than previously expected360 and why the “mini planet” Ceres in the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter shares characteristics of the rocky, terrestrial planets like Earth361. End September 10 2005]
The clash may also 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 that was falling away from the Sun was slowed down by the gravity of the Sun (where the debris falling towards the Sun was speeded 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 has8. 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). [September 10 2005: Three objects nearly Pluto-sized or larger were recently found in the Kuiper belt. All three are in elliptical orbits tilted out of the plane of the solar system. Astronomers think that these orbital characteristics may mean that they were all formed closer to the sun362. End September 10 2005] (Perhaps the Oort cloud is also due to the clash between Astor and Roid.)
[June 2004: The Kuiper belt too may have come to existence because a group of dark matter objects (which may have originated from a clash between two larger dark matter objects somewhere in interstellar space) came out of interstellar space and started orbiting the Sun. Right now the Kuiper belt is a mystery for big bang astronomers160. End June 2004]
[January 2005: Also big bang astronomers speculate about the evolution of the Kuiper belt objects with a giant impact in the past275. End January 2005]
[September 5 2005: A big bang researcher from the University of Toronto has found unexpectedly young material in meteorites, challenging big bang theories about early events in the formation of the Solar System. A paper published in Nature reports that key minerals called chondrules have been found in meteorites that formed much later than the initial nebula that, according to big bang astronomy, collapsed to form our Solar System. Instead, these chondrules were probably created when two newly forming planets smashed together, the researcher reports. The researcher thinks the chondrules were formed by a giant plume of vapour produced when two planetary embryos, somewhere between moon-size and Mars-size, collided. Within big bang astronomy the evolution of the solar system has traditionally been seen as a linear process, through which gases around the early sun gradually cooled to form small particles that eventually clumped into asteroids and planets. Now there is evidence of chondrules forming at two very distinct times, and evidence that embryo planets already existed when chondrules were still forming. “It moves our understanding from order to disorder,” the researcher admits. “But I am sure that as new data is collected, a new order will emerge.”352. End September 5 2005]
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 relatively 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 relatively 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 relatively high eccentricities of Jupiter and Saturn, which have relatively short sidereal rotation periods and thus had relatively fast orbiting velocities (when entering the Solar System) and hence a relatively big momentum causing eccentricity.)
[June 2004: A cloud of gas and dust and debris falling on a dark matter object, thus causing star formation as discussed in 7-1, may also bring proto-planetary disks which have been observed162,174. Therefore solar system formation too may be caused by the formation of proto-planetary disks next to sole dark matter objects flying into the solar system (7-1).
Thus there may be all kind of ways for solar systems to come to existence: dark matter objects coming from interstellar space swinging themselves around a star, proto-planetary disk formation out of the remains of a gas/dust/debris cloud falling on a dark matter object, dust/debris clouds swinging themselves around a star thus forming a proto-planetary disk, and combinations of those 3 different ways of solar system formation. End June 2004]
[September 23 2005: Using NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, a team of astronomers led by the University of Rochester has detected gaps ringing the dusty disks around two stars. Spitzer's Infrared Spectrograph instrument clearly showed that an area of dust surrounding certain stars was missing, strongly suggesting the presence of a planet around each. The only viable big bang explanation for the absence of gas is that a planet, most likely a gas giant like our Jupiter, is orbiting the star and gravitationally “sweeping out” the gas within that distance of the star, the researchers say. These observations represent a challenge to all existing big bang theories of giant-planet formation, especially those of the “core-accretion” models in which such planets are build up by accretion of smaller bodies368.
Perhaps that the above suggested alternative ways of solar system formation may be able to bring explanations. Large dark matter objects may come from interstellar space towards a star that is surrounded with a gas/dust disk, thus causing the gaps, i.e. the dark matter objects then may round up the gas/dust at certain distances from the star. Or: a gas/dust cloud may close in on a star that already has planets; the planets then may round up the gas/dust at certain distances from the star. Or: multiple gas/dust clouds close in on a star, having gaps between them (so perhaps there are no planets). Or: two gas/dust rings around a star may have been caused by four (two by two) giant planets (with gas) clashing at two different distances from the star. End September 23 2005]
[November 2004: Recently big bang astronomers looked for dusty discs around 266 nearby stars of similar size, about two to three times the mass of the sun, and various “ages” (that is, what big bang astronomers call ages, 4-4). Seventy-one of those stars were found to harbor discs. Instead of seeing the discs disappear in “older” stars, the astronomers observed the opposite in some cases. The team found some “young” stars missing discs and some “old” stars with massive discs257.
With the above mentioned ways of alternative ways of (proto-planetary) disc formation all kind of stars can have all kind of discs (or no disc at all). End November 2004]
[July 21 2005: Big bang astronomy states that dust disks around newborn stars disappear in a few million years; the disks ought to vanish because the material has collected into full-sized planets. Big bang astronomers have discovered a dust disk that shows no evidence of planet formation. The astronomers estimate the newfound disk to be about 25 million years old. For big bang astronomers the discovery raises the question of why this disk has not formed planets despite its advanced age341.
When planets are not formed by the formation of proto-planetary disks the problem is solved. End July 21 2005]
[September 5 2005: The central system in this case is actually a close binary star349. Perhaps that the two stars both had at least one planet orbiting the stars. Two planets of the stars therefore may have clashed, which may have produced the dust disk. Instead of the formation of (future) planets by a dust disk, as expected by big bang astronomers, a dust disk may have been formed by (clashing) planets. End September 5 2005]
[September 10 2005: Astronomers have spotted a dusty disc around the white dwarf GD 362. The dust surprised them. Dust around a white dwarf should only exist for hundreds of years before it is swept into the star by gravity and vaporized by high temperatures in the star's atmosphere. Something is keeping this star well stocked with dust somehow, the researchers say. They think that the dust around GD 362 could be the consequence of the relatively recent gravitational destruction of a large “parent body” that got too close to the star365.
Perhaps that clashing planets/dark matter objects can be the cause of the dust disc. A dark matter object or multiple dark matter objects may have come from interstellar space and so may have started orbiting the white dwarf until it/they clashed with old planets orbiting (the other way round) around the white dwarf. End September 10 2005]
[March 31 2005: Red dwarfs are smaller and cooler than our own Sun, but they account for 70% of the stars in our galaxy. Astronomers have wondered why there are so many red dwarfs, but they never seem to have protoplanetary discs of dust surrounding them, indicating the formation of new planets. These stars are too small to remove dust the way larger stars do it307.
Stars may come to existence by dark matter objects assembling hydrogen/gas/dust/smaller dark matter objects (7-1). Stars may shine for a while, cool down, assemble new hydrogen/gas/dust, light up again and shine for a while, cool down, assemble new hydrogen/gas/dust, etc. If so then red dwarfs are likely to be very young stars that so far did not have much time to assemble protoplanetary discs of dust. This may explain why most red dwarfs don't have protoplanetary discs of dust surrounding them. End March 31 2005]
1. Website Natural Philosophy Alliance: http://www.worldnpa.org/
2. Assis, A.K.T. Relational Mechanics (Apeiron, Montreal, 1999). (website Apeiron: http://redshift.vif.com/book_catalog.htm) (website Assis: http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis)
3. Ghosh, A. Origin of Inertia (Apeiron, Montreal, 2000). (website Apeiron: http://redshift.vif.com/book_catalog.htm)
4. Website Hatch: http://egtphysics.net
5. Edwards, M.R. (editor and contributor) Pushing Gravity (Apeiron, Montreal, 2002). (website Apeiron: http://redshift.vif.com/book_catalog.htm)
6. Harrison, E.R. Cosmology: the science of the universe (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
7. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0304/06cosmic/
8. Zeilik, M., Gregory, S.A. Introductory astronomy and astrophysics (Saunders College Publishing, Orlando, 1998).
9. Website Metaresearch/Van Flandern: http://metaresearch.org
10. Coleman, J.A. Relativity for the layman (Penguin Books, London, 1990).
11. Website Marmet: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/
12. d'Inverno, R.A. Introducing Einstein's relativity (Oxford University Press Inc., New York, 2000).
13. Website DeMeo: http://orgonelab.org/miller.htm
14. Website Gaasenbeek: http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/spap2.html
15. Website Gelman: http://gravity.ontheInter.net
16. Website Reber: http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/G_Reber.html
17. Drescher, M. et al. Nature 419, 803-807 (2002).
18. Website Gaasenbeek: http://www2.rideau.net/gaasbeek/spap1.html
19. Website Ginzburg: http://www.helicola.com/
20. Greenstein, G., Zajonc, A.G. The quantum challenge: modern research on the foundations of quantum mechanics (Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, 1997).
21. Website Thompson: http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/
22. Dürr, S., Nonn, T., Rempe, G. Nature 395, 33-37 (1998).
23. Website Nature: http://www.nature.com/nsu/030113/030113-6.html
24. Boslough, J. Masters of time: cosmology at the end of innocence (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1992).
25. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0303/12planet/
26. Website ESO Press Releases: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-02-03.html
27. Website Tifft publications: http://zwicky.as.arizona.edu/~rix/annrep97/annrep97.tifft.htm
28. Arp, H., Burbidge, E.M., Chu, Y., Flesch, E., Patat, F., Rupprecht, G. A&A 391, 833-840 (2002).
29. Arp, H.C. Seeing Red (Apeiron, Montreal, 1998).(website Apeiron: http://redshift.vif.com/book_catalog.htm)
30. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0304/12supersonic/
31. Webpage Blue Compact Dwarfs: http://www.bo.astro.it/report99/node18.html
32. Website Corbin and Vacca: http://www.solstation.com/x-objects/pox186.htm
33. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0303/01molecularcloud/
34. Website Chandra Press: http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/03_releases/press_010603.html
35. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0304/10tadpoles/
36. Assis, A.K.T., Neves, M.C.D. History of the 2.7 K temperature prior to Penzias and Wilson. Apeiron 2: 79-84, (1995). Or go to: http://www.dfi.uem.br/~macedane/history_of_2.7k.html
37. Sahu, K.C., Casertano, S., Livio, M., Gilliland, R.L., Panagia, N., Albrow, M.D., Potter, M. Nature 411, 1022-1024 (2001).
38. Jauncey, D.L., Macquart, J.-P. A&A 370, L9 (2001).
39. Website Science News: http://www.sciencenews.org/20020928/fob1.asp
40. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0304/04lens/
41. Website Manuel: http://web.umr.edu/~om/
42. Webpage Super Star Clusters: http://astron.berkeley.edu/~agilbert/sscs/
43. Peterson, B.M. An introduction to active galactic nuclei (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)
44. Website Wilkes: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept01/Wilkes/Wilkes4.html
45. HubbleSite: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/1998/14/image/a
46. Website AGN observations: http://ast.leeds.ac.uk/~rjrw/publ/dysonj/node4.html
47. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0303/24chandra/
48. Website Basic Nuclear Science Information: http://www.lbl.gov/abc/Basic.html
49. Website Antares: http://antares.in2p3.fr/Overview/why.html
50. Website NASA: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast21oct98_1.htm
51. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0301/14grb/
52. Website NASA: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/961213b.html
53. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0303/14chandra/
54. Website NASA ADS Astronomy Abstract Service: http://ukads.nottingham.ac.uk/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=2001AAS...198.2203I&db_key=AST
55. Website Europhysics News: http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/12/article17/article17.html
56. Website ACCESS: http://hep.uchicago.edu/~swordy/access.html
57. Website Radio Astronomy Observatory: http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2003/spiraljet/
58. Website UCSC: http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/press_releases/text.asp?pid=336
59. Website Padovani/Giommi: http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Padovani/Padovani3.html
60. Website Australia Telescope National Facility: http://www.atnf.csiro.au/education/pulsar/intro/
61. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0303/17pulsar/
62. Website Thorsett: http://pulsar.ucolick.org/cog/pulsars/intro.html
63. Website Swinburne Astrophysics & Supercomputing: http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/sao/young/
64. White dwarf website: http://www.star.le.ac.uk/wd/hip.html
65. White dwarf website: http://www.star.le.ac.uk/wd/whole%20earth%20telescope%20proj.html
66. White dwarf website: http://www.star.le.ac.uk/wd/H_rich.html
67. Website ESO Press Releases: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-15-02.html
68. Website Wolf-Rayet stars: http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/Astronomy/WolRaySta.html
69. Website Moons Jupiter: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/faculty/jewitt/jmoons/jmoons.html
70. Website Mitchell: http://hometown.aol.com/wmitch8493/myhomepage/index.html
71. Arp, H.C. Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (Interstellar Media, 1987).
72. Website Arp: http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=5
73. López-Corredoira, M. and Gutiérrez, C. 2002, A&A, 390, L15.
74. Selleri, F. Lezioni di relativita' da Einstein all' etere di Lorentz (Progedit, Bari, 2003).
75. Mitchell, W. C. Bye Bye Big Bang Hello Reality (Cosmic Sense Books, Carson City, 2002). (see also reference 70)
76. Assis, A.K.T., Neves, M.C.D. The redshift revisited, Astrophysics and Space Science, Vol. 227, 13-24 (1995). Or go to: http://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/Astrophys-Space-Sci-V227-p13-24(1995).pdf (700 kB)
77. Website ESO News: http://www.esa.int/export/esaCP/SEMRHL274OD_Expanding_0.html
78. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0308/15explosions/
79. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0310/30cluster/
80. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0310/29chandra/
81. Astrophysics, abstract astro-ph/0308518: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0308518
82. RAS Press Notice PN03-26: http://www.ras.org.uk/html/press/pn0326ras.html
83. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0308/08clusters/
84. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0308/06supernovashape/
85. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0308/02cluster/
86. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/30chandra/
87. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/25atoms/
88. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/25halos/
89. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/22galacticcenter/
90. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/21parentstars/
91. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/19einsteinring/
92. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/18maps/
93. Website NASA: Astronomy picture of the day: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970731.html
94. Website Wright: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm
95. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/17darkmatter/
96. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/17orphan/
97. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/16supernova/
98. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/16blackhole/
99. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/10planet/
100. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/03planet/
101. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/02pulsar/
102. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0307/01chandrajet/
103. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0306/21simple/
104. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0306/19galaxies/
105. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0306/14chandra
106. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0306/11xmm/
107. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0305/21construction/
108. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0305/16chao
109. Bignami, G.F., De Luca, A., Caraveo, P.A., Mereghetti, S., Moroni, M. and Mignani, R.P. Memorie della Società Astronomica Italiana 75, 448-453 (2004).
Or go to: http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt750304/PDF/2004MmSAI..75..448B.pdf (279 kB)
110. SpaceRef Canada Website: http://www.spaceref.ca/news/viewpr.html?pid=433
111. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0305/02firststars/
112. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0304/21nebula
113. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0304/17starform/
114. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0304/14browndwarf/
115. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0309/25milkyway/
116. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0308/11halo/
117. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0309/22giantstar/
118. Anglo-Australian Observatory Press Release: http://www.aao.gov.au/press/cannibal.htm
119. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0309/05blackhole/
120. Website New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994959
121. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0405/25quasars/
122. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0405/18darkenergy/
123. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0404/22hubblering/
124. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0404/19blackhole/
125. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0404/02blackhole/
126. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0403/31minigalaxies/
127. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0403/30andromeda/
128. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0403/24whitedwarf/
129. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0403/24wimps/
130. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0403/23starbirth/
131. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0403/17gammaray/
132. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0403/08saturnxray/
133. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0403/04spaceart
134. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0403/04bigbang/
135. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0403/02blackhole/
136. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/29optics/
137. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/29optics/
138. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/14darkages/
139. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/12spitzerrose/
140. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/15lens/
141. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/11lens/
142. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/05blackhole/
143. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/05blackeye/
144. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/04galactic/
145. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/03hubble/
146. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/02planet/
147. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0402/02bigbang/
148. AAS Website: http://www.aas.org/publications/baas/v36n2/aas204/617.htm
149. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/15spitting/
150. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/15failedstars/
151. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/15atmosphere/
152. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/12brighteststar/
153. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/12blackholejet/
154. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/07plunge/
155. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/05clusters/
156. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0401/05speedingstar/
157. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0312/29planetary/
158. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0312/10cloverleaf/
159. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0312/08collision/
160. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0311/26kuiper
161. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0311/24islanduniverse/
162. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0311/14nascentstar/
163. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0311/12explosion/
164. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0311/04canismajor/
165. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/14spitzer/
166. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/07filaments/
167. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/06distant/
168. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/07firststars/
169. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/05hubbletrifid
170. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/04pinwheel/
171. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/03dustdisk/
172. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/02monster/
173. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/01parallelogram/
174. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0405/27spitzer/
175. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-10-04.html
176. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/phot-12-04.html
177. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-08-04.html
178. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-04-04.html
179. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-15-04.html
180. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2001/pr-05-01.html
181. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-14-04.html
182. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-34-03.html
183. ESO Photo: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/images/Phot34/phot-34-03-fullres.jpg
184. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-19-03.html
185. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-19-03.html
186. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-18-03.html
187. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-15-03.html
188. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-14-03.html
189. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2003/pr-13-03.html
190. RAS Press Notice PN03-39: http://www.ras.org.uk/html/press/pn0339ras.html
191. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/22milkyway/
192. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/21ultracool/
193. Q0906+6930: The Highest-Redshift Blazar: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0406/0406252.pdf
194. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/18blackhole/
195. Website AAVSO: http://www.aavso.org/vstar/vsots/0101.shtml
196. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-23-02.html
197. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-19-02.html
198. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-14-02.html
199. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-11-02.html
200. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2002/pr-06-02.html
201. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=661&Itemid=2
202. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=656&Itemid=2
203. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=650&Itemid=2
204. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/html/press/ioa0301.html
205. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=634&Itemid=2
206. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=633&Itemid=2
207. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=632&Itemid=2
208. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=626&Itemid=2
209. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=624&Itemid=2
210. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=622&Itemid=2
211. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=615&Itemid=2
212. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=613&Itemid=2
213. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0406/28spitzergalaxy/
214. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0302/23fog/
215. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0302/22coolest/
216. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0302/19chandra/
217. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0301/12hypergiant/
218. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0301/12coronal/
219. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0301/12ring/
220. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0301/07chandra/
221. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0212/27chandra/
222. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0407/07earlyuniverse/
223. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0407/09browndwarf/
224. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0407/19starbursts/
225. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-17-04.html
226. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=673&Itemid=2
227. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0212/12hubble/
228. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0211/11darkenergy/
229. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0210/21milkyway/
230. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0210/18skidmarks/
231. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0210/11planet/
232. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0210/05quasars/
233. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0209/18blackhole/
234. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0208/14gamma/
235. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0207/30thermostat/
236. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0206/27hideandseek/
237. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0205/12haze/
238. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0205/03teenstars/
239. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0204/26chandra/
240. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0204/24hubbleage/
241. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0204/23quasars/
242. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0204/23neutron/
243. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0204/12darkmatter/
244. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0201/10ironsun/
245. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0407/24darkenergy/
246. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0407/30neutrinos/
247. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0408/04grb/
248. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0408/08smallgalaxy/
249. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0408/14galaxycluster/
250. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0408/14globularcluster/
251. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0408/23chandra/
252. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0408/30planet/
253. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0409/08spitzer/
254. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0409/23merger/
255. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0409/24hubble/
256. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0410/08object/
257. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0410/18planet/
258. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0410/20hipparcos/
259. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0410/24companion/
260. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0410/26chandrahalo/
261. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0411/09spitzer/
262. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0411/11babyplanet/
263. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0411/14galaxyform/
264. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-24-04.html
265. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/phot-31-04.html
266. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0411/28blackhole/
267. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0411/30babygalaxy/
268. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0412/27galex/
269. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0501/10seethrough/
270. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0501/10spacetime/
271. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0501/12blobs/
272. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0501/16collision/
273. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0501/17spin/
274. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-01-05.html
275. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0501/27pluto/
276. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0501/31blackhole
277. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0502/02matter/
278. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0502/05survey/
279. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0502/08minisolarsystem/
280. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0502/12outcast/
281. Website Nature: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050221/full/050221-10.html
282. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/galaxy_clusters_early.html?1722005
283. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0502/17blackholes/
284. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0502/21planets/
285. Website Spacedaily: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-05h.html
286. Govert Schilling about Maurice Allais in the New Scientist, November 27 2004
287. General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology, abstract gr-qc/0408023: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0408023
288. Website University of Califoria: http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp
289. BBC News : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/4288633.stm
290. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0503/03jupiter/
291. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0503/03hubble/
292. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-04-05.html
293. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-05-05.html
294. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0503/07starformation/
295. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0503/08stickyice/
296. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0503/09heavystars/
297. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0503/11soup/
298. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-07-05.html
299. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/matter_nears_light_speed.html?2322005
300. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/limit_black_holes.html?1622005
301. Hubblesite: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2004/07/text/
302. Website NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0107filament.html
303. Website Subaru Telescope: http://subarutelescope.org/Pressrelease/2005/02/16/index.html
304. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/medium_mass_black_hole.html?2232005
305. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-08-05.html
306. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/egg_regulus_spinning.html?2112005
307. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/dwarfs_blow_dusty_disks.html?1812005
308. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/leftover_big_bang.html?1412005
309. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/trifid_nebula_incubators.html?1312005
310. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/new_stars_smc.html?1312005
311. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/view_colliding_galaxies.html?1312005
312. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/smashing_planetesimals.html?1312005
313. Website Alternative Cosmology Group: http://www.cosmology.info/
314. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/super_star_clusters.html?1212005
315. Physics Web: http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/12/8/1
316. Website Science a GoGo: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980828033442data_trunc_sys.shtml
317. New Scientist paper 1998: http://www.mufor.org/antigrav4.html
318. Space.com website: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_041018.html
319. SpaceRef.com website: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16560
320. 12th annual conference Natural Philosophy Alliance: http://www.conferences.uconn.edu/npa
321. Proceedings of the international workshop on Mach's Principle and the Origin of Inertia: http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/kharagpurmach.htm (or check out the website of publisher Apeiron: http://redshift.vif.com/book_catalog.htm)
322. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0504/04starburst/
323. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0504/07fossil/
324. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0504/08firststars/
325. Royal Astronomical Society Press Notice: http://www.ras.org.uk/html/press/pn0518ras.html
326. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-12-05.html
327. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/perfect_einstein_ring.html?2942005
328. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0504/19orbits/
329. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0504/09mystery/
330. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/fountain_youth_core.html?1242005
331. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/hot_spots_neutron_stars.html?2542005
332. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/200000_quasars.html?2642005
333. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0505/11grb/
334. Website Spacedaily: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/stellar-05l.html
335. Website Spacedaily: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0505/31amalthea/
336. Website Spacedaily: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0506/01waves/
337. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/carbon_oxygen_grbs.html?2752005
338. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/supernova_left_no_core.html?662005
339. Website New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn740
340. Website Space.com: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050613_void_galaxies.html
341. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0507/18dustdisk/
342. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0507/19starquake/
343. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0507/21youngearth/
344. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/30galaxies/
345. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/02background/
346. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/03xraysky/
347. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/03blackholes/
348. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/telescope_reveals_ngc4625_arms.html?2672005
349. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/audio_oldest_planetary_disk.html?382005
350. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/gemini_uncovers_lost_city_of_stars.html?1182005
351. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/swift_finds_newborn_black_holes.html?1982005
352. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/discovery_of_chondrules_in_meterorites.html?1982005
353. SpaceRef.com website: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17675
354. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0508/31bigstar/
355. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/02neutronstar/
356. Ratcliffe, H. The First Crises in Cosmology Conference, Progress in Physics, Vol. 3, 19-24, 2005. Or go to: http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
357. New Scientist, May 22 2004. Or go to: http://cosmologystatement.org
358. Cahill, R.T. The Michelson and Moreley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion, Progress in Physics, Vol. 3, 25-29, 2005. Or go to: http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/2005.html
359. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/07deepimpact/
360. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/05comets/
361. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/07ceres/
362. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/09solarssytem/
363. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/building_life_from_star-stuff.html?592005
364. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/star_eats_companion.html?692005
365. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/dusty_old_star_predicts_future.html?992005
366. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-23-05.html
367. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-24-05.html
368. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/11rapidplanets/
369. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/14boomerang/
370. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/20bluestars/
371. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/virgo_cluster_galaxies.html?2092005
372. Website ESO News: http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd
373. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-26-05.html
374. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0510/12chemicals/
375. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0510/14andromeda/
376. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0510/14newstars/
377. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/distant_galaxy_too_massive.html?2792005
378. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/spiral_galaxy_ngc_1350.html?2992005
379. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/lichen_can_survive_space.html?9112005
380. arXiv astrophysics abstract: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510183
381. Space.com: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/heavy_blazar_040628.html
382. NewScientist.com: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn5060
383. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0512/07collisions/
384. Website Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0512/14halo/
385. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/jhu_dark_matter.html?11122005
386. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/unusual_kuiper_object.html?14122005
387. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/podcast_dark_matter_maps.html?14122005
388. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2005/pr-33-05.html
389. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0512/20spitzer/
390. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/naoj_dark_matter_nurseries.html?23122005
391. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0601/09milkyway/
392. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0601/09noreturn/
393. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0601/10blackholegrowth/
394. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0601/10spitzergalaxy/
395. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0601/12galaxies/
396. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/pparc_darkmatter_virgohi.html?1212006
397. Robitaille, P-M. The Solar Photosphere: Evidence for Condensed Matter Progress in Physics 2: 17-21, (2006). Or go to: http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-05-04.PDF397.
398. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0601/26exiledstars/
399. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0601/30singlestars/
400. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0602/06halo/
401. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-06-06.html
402. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0602/14backward/
403. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0602/15glass/
404. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/glimpse_at_universe.html?2022006
405. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/ngc3379_lost_dark_matter.html?2122006
406. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0603/04andromeda/
407. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-10-06.html
408. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0603/15browndwarfs/
409. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0603/16galaxyfire/
410. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0603/23quasar/
411. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/giant_protoplanet_mig.html?2132006
412. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/mercury_impact_earth.html?542006
413. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0604/10dark/
414. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0604/10galaxies/
415. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0604/22darkmatter/
416. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0604/27fossilgalaxy/
417. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0605/01blackholepair/
418. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0605/02monstrous/
419. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0606/10galaxygas/
420. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0606/10dusty/
421. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0606/14starbirth/
422. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/2006/06/12/globular-cluster-47-tucanae/
423. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/2006/06/16/dark-matter-first-then-a-galaxy/
424. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0606/12fireballs/
425. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/2006/06/20/distant-quasars-are-natural-particle-accelerators/
426. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-23-06.html
427. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/2006/07/07/young-neutron-star-wont-act-its-age/
428. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0608/21darkmatter/
429. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/2006/07/27/the-largest-structure-in-the-universe/
430. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/2006/08/03/podcast-a-puzzling-difference/
431. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-29-06.html
432. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-30-06.html
433. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-31-06.html
434. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-33-06.html
435. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0610/02stellar
436. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0610/05blackholejets/
437. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0610/12spiderweb/
438. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/2006/09/13/hubble-sees-the-first-bright-galaxies/
439. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-39-06.html
440. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0610/16superearths/
441. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0611/02cosmicdust/
442. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0611/02galaxyring/
443. Website Universe Today: http://www.universetoday.com/2006/10/25/young-star-grows-up-quickly/
444. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-41-06.html
445. Website ESO News: http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2006/pr-49-06.html
446. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0701/05blackhole/
447. Govert Schilling, De Volkskrant, January 13 2007
448. Edwards, M.R. Annals of Geophysics supplement to v. 49 n. 1, 501-508 (2006).
449. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0703/06aegis/
450. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0704/17browndwarf/
451. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0704/30blackhole/
452. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0705/02babybooms/
453. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0705/02superplanet/
454. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0705/07supernova/
455. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0705/09hotplanet/
456. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0705/23explosions/
457. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0705/24grb/
458. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0705/30galaxycluster/
459. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0706/27xrayjet/
460. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0707/12partner/
461. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0707/24piranha/
462. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0707/26molecule/
463. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0707/30galaxy/
464. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0707/30supergiant/
465. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0708/06planet/
466. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0708/22distant/
467. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0708/22darkmatter/
468. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0708/27neutronstar/
469. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0709/04blackholes/
470. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0710/18babygalaxy/
471. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0801/05whitedwarf
472. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0801/05disk/
473. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0801/09blueblobs/
474. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0801/10einsteinrings/
475. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0801/10weird/
476. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0801/14thingalaxies/
477. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0801/20darkmatter/
478. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0801/22gas/
479. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0801/25gems/
480. Spaceflightnow News: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0801/25stardust/