The Realistic Cosmology An Alternative To The Big Bang Theory

[exchemist]

That is simply not true. I have published work online before and I've never actually been banned for posting crackpot science, moderators on other sites found alternative ways to ban me.

 

Not exactly the actions of a modest team.

But they did ban you, right? 

[xps13579]

 

The X-Structure Explains the formation of galaxies without merger

The Milky Way is a type of "disk" galaxy that generally has a “stellar bar" consisting of dense stars moving in a box-shaped orbit around the center.

The astronomers suggest that the stellar X was formed when the bars collapsed at the center of our galaxy after becoming unstable.

NASA says a bulge can also form when galaxies merge, but the Milky Way has not merged with any large galaxy in at least 9 billion years.

"We see the boxy shape and the X within it clearly in the WISE image, which demonstrates that internal formation processes have driven the bulge formation," Ness said. "This also reinforces the idea that our galaxy has led a fairly quiet life, without major merging events since the bulge was formed, as this shape would have been disrupted if we had any major interactions with other galaxies."

 

[OceanBreeze]

The X-Structure Explains the formation of galaxies without merger

The Milky Way is a type of "disk" galaxy that generally has a “stellar bar" consisting of dense stars moving in a box-shaped orbit around the center.

The astronomers suggest that the stellar X was formed when the bars collapsed at the center of our galaxy after becoming unstable.

NASA says a bulge can also form when galaxies merge, but the Milky Way has not merged with any large galaxy in at least 9 billion years.

"We see the boxy shape and the X within it clearly in the WISE image, which demonstrates that internal formation processes have driven the bulge formation," Ness said. "This also reinforces the idea that our galaxy has led a fairly quiet life, without major merging events since the bulge was formed, as this shape would have been disrupted if we had any major interactions with other galaxies."

 

 

It is considered common courtesy, when directly quoting from a source, to give a link to that source.

 

Your entire post is a quote from this source. NASA JPL

 

You might even include a picture so people can see what you are talking about

 

All of this is indeed interesting, but in no way does it support your ideas about constant creation of matter in the universe.

 

[xps13579]

if two or more than two galaxies merge the X structure will not exist, therefore we say that the  Milky Way isn't from the merger of galaxies, which implies galaxies form from continuously growing and new matter creates continuously in galaxy

[OceanBreeze]

if two or more than two galaxies merge the X structure will not exist, therefore we say that the  Milky Way isn't from the merger of galaxies, which implies galaxies form from continuously growing and new matter creates continuously in galaxy

 

 

The only thing that is implied is the Milky Way galaxy may not have been formed by a merger of other galaxies.

It does not imply that it could not have been formed by vast clouds of dust collapsing under gravitational force, which I think is the leading theory on galaxy formation.

[xps13579]

The only thing that is implied is the Milky Way galaxy may not have been formed by a merger of other galaxies.

It does not imply that it could not have been formed by vast clouds of dust collapsing under gravitational force, which I think is the leading theory on galaxy formation.

when the clouds is  vast, its effect is the same as a merging galaxy to destroy  the X- structure. in fact, there are no vast clouds of dust in universe except galaxies, and again, if galaxies could merge there would have no regularity with shapes of galaxies and there could be all sorts of strange things of the galaxy instead of actual several sorts, that is to say, the regularity of galaxy formation decides galaxies form from continuous growth but not merger, new matter has continuously been creating inside galaxy 

Edited July 5, 2017 by xps13579

[xps13579]

The appearance of this new material can be regarded as the conversion of the work done by the force of the expansion of space and time, but not the absorption of what is in existence. the increase of mass of a galaxy meets thermodynamic energy equation dm+Pdv=0, P is  negative value of density of the galaxy,see the paper "Modification of Field Equation and Return of Continuous Creation----- Galaxies Form from Gradual Growth Instead of Gather of Existent Matter"  Download  | Page No : 5-32

 

The following figure ( http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-666-42391-1.shtml ) doesn’t stand for two galaxies merging,  the galaxy of the left is far brighter than the right and therefore their distances to the earth are quite different though they look closed, they actually are departing from one another all the same following Hubble law

Edited July 4, 2017 by xps13579

[xps13579]

Maybe non-conservation happens inside of galaxies. I am not sure, but certainly Motz and Kraft have argued for that, Motz more specifically back in the late 60's.

 

The non-conservation I deal with though is cosmological, any idea of non-conservation in galaxies cannot be that great, is how I figure.

yes, yes

[xps13579]

 

It is considered common courtesy, when directly quoting from a source, to give a link to that source.

 

Your entire post is a quote from this source. NASA JPL

 

You might even include a picture so people can see what you are talking about

 

All of this is indeed interesting, but in no way does it support your ideas about constant creation of matter in the universe.

 

 if two or more than two galaxies merge the X structure will not exist, therefore we say that the Milky Way isn't from the merger of galaxies, which implies galaxies form from continuously growing and new matter creates continuously in galaxy

[OceanBreeze]

   if two or more than two galaxies merge the X structure will not exist, therefore we say that the Milky Way isn't from the merger of galaxies, which implies galaxies form from continuously growing and new matter creates continuously in galaxy

 

Implies no such thing. Galaxies form from huge clouds of dust and gas that collapse under gravitational force.

 

The "X" structure in our galaxy indicates that it has not had a major merger in at least 9 Billion years, but it is due for one in another 3 Billion or so.

[xps13579]

 

Implies no such thing. Galaxies form from huge clouds of dust and gas that collapse under gravitational force.

 

The "X" structure in our galaxy indicates that it has not had a major merger in at least 9 Billion years, but it is due for one in another 3 Billion or so.

 

outside galaxy is vacuum and there is no dust that you imagine. again, according to current theory in early universe large galaxy didn't exist therefore in another 3 Billion the milky way was important to complete to form. in a word galaxies have been forming gradually all the while, ancient and modern are consistent, we should insist Theory of Uniformity to avoid pseudoscience

Edited July 6, 2017 by xps13579

[xps13579]

The continuous expansion of the universe and the continuous creation of matter are inseparable,the expansion of the universe is not a reciprocal retreat of galaxies in existing space, but rather the space between galaxies is continuously creating. Since the universe can create space, it can also create matter,The simultaneous creation of space-time and matter is an inseparable manifestation of the two.In cosmology, there is no reason to adhere strictly to the law of conservation of mass，and it is the expansion of the universe that provides the basic energy for the universe

[hazelm]

Message to xps13579:   Brevity is the soul of wisdom.    Make a poster.  "Brevity is the soul of wisdom"  

 

So, I confess to never finishing your first post, even though I'd like to have.  You are as entitled to your theory as anyone else.  But, good grief, if you want us to read it, hand it out in bites, not choking gulps.  Or, as Buffy said, break it down into short sentences in short paragraphs in short sections -- all with some subheadings.

 

From the little I did read and think I understand, I concluded that your "disproof" of Big Bang has absolutely nothing to do with your "gradual growth" theory.  Except for one thing, perhaps.  My question:  Many people pester Big Bang believers with the question "from what?" Now I ask you:  "from what?"   Your gradual growth of the galaxies, et al, had to come from something.  I wonder if it came from the Big Bang.  Can you answer that in 25 words or less?  I will not even ask for proof.  Just tell us "from what" did gradual growth start?  I'll leave the rest to scientists. 

 

For brevity's sake, I stop after confessing that I, too, have often been criticized for wearing out my topic with verbosity.  hazelm

Edited August 24, 2017 by hazelm

[xps13579]

I had proved that the mass of any celestial body or galaxy is proportional to the cubic of Cosmic scale factor , namely m=kR^3(t) which implies celestial body or galaxy  grew out of nothing in view of m=0 for R(t)=0

[hazelm]

I had proved that the mass of any celestial body or galaxy is proportional to the cubic of Cosmic scale factor , namely m=kR^3(t) which implies celestial body or galaxy  grew out of nothing in view of m=0 for R(t)=0

All right.  Thank you.  That is over my head now  (I can't understand).  So, I shall take your word for it.  I am also told the Big Bang came out of nothing.  At least - as I now see - your theory and Big Bang theory are starting out on an even footing. 

 

I must slowly read the other six pages which I'd not even attempted for reasons already  given.  Thanks again for reply.

[xps13579]

the realistic cosmology absorbed the merits of big bang model and steady-state cosmology and threw away their shortcomings, cosmic expansion and contraction circulate and corresponding cosmic scalar factor R(t)=Asinkt which is a sinusoid

[exchemist]

F. Hoyle, Shyamal K. Banerjeew, Jayant V. Narlikarw, W. H. CcCrea, J. P. Wesley, Toivo Jaakkolo, G.burbidge, LingJun Wang, Harutyunian, H.A., Cooperstock, F. I., Faraoni, V., Vollick, D. N. , Zhou Yao qi, Chen Hai Yun,and so on ...... the above are against the big bang

You mean WERE. 

 

Which of those you list are still alive? And how many of  the ones still alive are (a) serious cosmologists, who have (b ) abandoned the Big Bang theory. Because that is your claim.

 

To give one example, Hoyle has been dead for years and he never abandoned the Big Bang theory: he never accepted it in the first place.  Burbidge is also long dead. (I have not heard of the others and have not spent the time to research who they are.)

Edited August 29, 2017 by exchemist