Chinese Scholar, Jian Liang Yang, Has Brought Order Out Of Chaos In Astrophysical Field

[xps13579]

 

I have found and posted all the links to your theory on your thread, it is a bout time you provided some evidence of your claims rather than just waving your hands in the air. Please provide reliable citations for your claims 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270395664_The_Earth_Expansion_Evidence_--_A_Challenge_for_Geology_Geophysics_and_Astronomy

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674984715000518

 

https://www.dinox.org/expandingearth.html

[hazelm]

You would be correct, planets do not become stars, and science is not dogma, you can believe what you like. Most likely the stuff that planets are made up of originated from stars and supernovae. The heavier elements are created like iron are created inside of stars.  This is standard generally accepted physics.

 

New theories are good when supported by reliable observations. When they are supported by fantasy they get trashed :) . The fantasy theories are however a good way of learning about a subject :) . The subjects of gravity and what came before any kind of big bang, give rise to various theories some fanciful others plausible some reasonable. You do not have to believe any of them, none can predict everything, although some mathematicians would like to think they can. 

 

Science is not dogma it can change, some people however believe in some established "theories" as fact. These result in Black hole singularities, Big Bangs originating from singularities. Which is a contradiction in itself. The term Big Bang was coined as a Joke by Hoyle who I mentioned in one of the earlier links I posted. The concept of the universe appearing from a singularity is largely considered to be rubbish today but people still use the words Big Bang. 

 

Flummoxed, please print that up in small book form.  I know about a dozen (maybe three dozen) would-be scientists I'd like to give a copy to.  Maybe even a few to some real, graduate scientists but I find that most of those are already aware that their 100%-accepted theory can get shot down any day or year. 

 

My one comment concerns fantasy theories:  (1)  Best way to get rid of them is to ignore them.  (2)  But be careful.  They may turn out to be correct after all.  :-)

 

Make science; not war.  Hazel

[hazelm]

Links 1 and 3 do not give any measurements to support your arguments, they are nothing more than pop science articles. Link 2 is a bit more interesting, however it in no way supports your claim that mass of the earth is increasing, in fact it does not even mention the word mass. 

 

The following is a from link 2

 

"According to the space-geodetic data recorded at globally distributed stations over solid land spanning a period of more than 20-years under the International Terrestrial Reference Frame 2008, our previous estimate of the average-weighted vertical variation of the Earth's solid surface suggests that the Earth's solid part is expanding at a rate of 0.24 ± 0.05 mm/a in recent two decades. In another aspect, the satellite altimetry observations spanning recent two decades demonstrate the sea level rise(SLR) rate 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/a, of which 1.8 ± 0.5 mm/a is contributed by the ice melting over land. This study shows that the oceanic thermal expansion is 1.0 ± 0.1 mm/a due to the temperature increase in recent half century, which coincides with the estimate provided by previous authors"

 

You have not provided any evidence to support your claims that the mass of the earth is increasing. :(

 

Interesting link on space geodesey project used to measure stuff from space. https://space-geodesy.nasa.gov/docs/2012/SGPinterns_merkowitz_120606.pdf 

 

 

 

Hi Hazel

 

I think Fred Hoyle has already written about the above.

 

I am not making war, I am playing asking amusing questions.   I hope I am not causing offence. 

 

It is my opinion for a forum to work people need to discuss ideas, and be prepared to defend them, with evidence. I am new to this forum, and note there are many theories that people have posted which receive no or little response. New theories may well be correct but finding some on prepared to discuss them is not. Most science forums only discuss the standard model. 

 

This forum is not a suitable place to discuss my hunches or other theories I am interested in.  

 

You will note only you, I, and exchemist have posted any kind of response, without which there would have been no response to this thread and as in your list of options the thread would die.  :shocked:

 

 

 

 

 

I am not making war, I am asking amusing questions.   I hope I am not causing offence. 

Oh, my no.  That was just my thought in response to something I observe on some forums.  You don't see it here.  At least I haven't.  That is why I like this forum.  Yes, it is a slow, quiet place but people are gentle with each other even when they disagree or protest.  All this is why I latched onto Richard Morris's "science is not dogma".  I had not thought of it that way but, when people fume and fight in a discussion, it is people preaching science dogmatically.  Dogma doesn't belong in science.  Not considering how fast theories, like dominoes, fall. 

 

I liked your post.  It said everything that I was thinking.  Everyone has a right to his own theories , a right to express them and a right to respect when he does so. 

 

That's my theory.  :-)  Happy Day.  Hazel

[xps13579]

 

Oh, my no.  That was just my thought in response to something I observe on some forums.  You don't see it here.  At least I haven't.  That is why I like this forum.  Yes, it is a slow, quiet place but people are gentle with each other even when they disagree or protest.  All this is why I latched onto Richard Morris's "science is not dogma".  I had not thought of it that way but, when people fume and fight in a discussion, it is people preaching science dogmatically.  Dogma doesn't belong in science.  Not considering how fast theories, like dominoes, fall. 

 

I liked your post.  It said everything that I was thinking.  Everyone has a right to his own theories , a right to express them and a right to respect when he does so. 

 

That's my theory.  :-)  Happy Day.  Hazel

 

 

These three links are well enough to show that the earth is expanding, merely the error is quite large.According to Yang's theory, the radius of the earth is currently increasing by 0.4 mm per year, which is well within the range of errors.Of course, the evidence of Earth's expansion or growth is still accumulating, or else it's not a frontier. In the beginning the new theory is generally weaker and needs to be perfected step by step. Attitudes towards new things are the criterion of judging revolution or counter-revolution.Of course, For some, even if the evidence buried him, he wouldn't agree to new theory.

Edited December 17, 2018 by xps13579

[hazelm]

  

 

These three links are well enough to show that the earth is expanding, merely the error is quite large.According to Yang's theory, the radius of the earth is currently increasing by 0.4 mm per year, which is well within the range of errors.Of course, the evidence of Earth's expansion or growth is still accumulating, or else it's not a frontier. In the beginning the new theory is generally weaker and needs to be perfected step by step. Attitudes towards new things are the criterion of judging revolution or counter-revolution.Of course, For some, even if the evidence buried him, he wouldn't agree to new theory.

 

You know what?  I have to confirm that last sentence.  Einstein's --- no, let's say that what people say Einstein said -- has not convinced me  and never will.  No one is ever going to convince me that traveling to Andromeda is going to age or slow down my aging.  Moreover, those Bob and Alice stories make me run for the hills.  Enough about Bob and Alice for a while?  OK?

 

Yang's theory?  I haven't decided yet.  But it won't bury me.  Good morning.

[hazelm]

 

One of your links indicates the sea level is rising, the other measurements could be explained by plate movements. An earthquake of new zealand 2 years ago ish raised the sea floor 2 metres. The Himalayas were raised through plate interactions. The evidence the earths surface is expanding due to new matter being created in it, is week to say the least, and disobeys the laws of thermodynamics. 

 

The laws of thermodynamics states that energy can not be created or destroyed. This of course presents physics with a big problem. Juan attempts to get around this by stating matter is created inside solar bodies, by some unknown mechanism. If the solar bodies never existed in the first place how was matter created, it is generally thought that nebulae are the birth place of stars and planets.  https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1647.html . Does Yangs theory hold true in gas clouds like seen in a nebulae. Without solar bodies that part of his theory appears to fall down. 

 

Hoyles idea was that mass appeared in space and then accumalated into gas clouds then into stars etc etc. He also did not believe in the big bang model up until his recent death.

 

The following is un-provable plausible speculation:-

To maintain a zero energy universe and not to disobey the laws of thermodynamics, gravity is -ve energy, and all other forms of energy are +ve energy. The big bang could not happen in the forms speculated from a very hot singularity or region of space due to gravity already existing.

Hoyle never proved matter was continually being created in space at its current temperature. If matter was to be created in an early universe it would be much be cooler than it is now ie 0 Kelvin (which allows the 5th state of matter to be reasonably stable things like condensates might form from quarks). Space time would be just flickering into existence, as it is continually doing to day in the expanding universe we live in, but at a lower temperature. Condensates interestingly have been shown occasionally to have negative mass in that they move apart.

 

By analogy if you view the heat of the universe as a wind that prevents ripples from forming, above 2.75K+/- then Quantum fluctuations and Pin pricks in 4 dimensional space time to a 5th dimension might appear. These pinpricks in space time would be like EPR bridges or massless black holes allowing quantum fluctuations around the mouth to be formed into quarks, electrons, atoms etc. These particles today are still connected to a 5th dimension, but due to the elevated temperature of the universe are not able to appear on mass. I suspect in colder regions of the vacuum of space, particles appear spontaneously from the vacuum and are stable, in that the quantum fluctuations become trapped around a wormhole to a none spacial dimension. ie something like Hawking radiation but on the microscopic scale occurred throughout the universe, allowing multiple swirling vortices spiral galaxies to form around a central point some of which collapsed into a blackhole, etc etc. Ubtil the current day. Edit the black hole particle idea is fairly old but was revisited recently see following links 

https://resonance.is/black-holes-elementary-particles-revisiting-pioneering-investigation-particles-may-micro-black-holes/ 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9202014.pdf 

https://phys.org/news/2013-12-creation-entanglement-simultaneously-wormhole.html

 

The NZ earthquake raised the sea floor 2 meters.  I am sure they have equipment down there to do the measuring.  My question:  How far from shore is the measuring done?  Is it right where the plates come together?  I am having trouble making my question sensible.  I know the plates pass over/under each other.  But, when one rises, what happens with the other?  Or, do both rise?  If the latter, that would indeed raise the sea (water?) level.  And, of course, land level if under land.  Is this also when the Himalayas rose?  The rise that you speak of, I mean.

 

 

Thank you for your last paragraphs.  I appreciate those when I am reading about graduated cosmology.  Yang's paper is a lot of reading and a tad deep to comprehend.  A question here, also:  Has anyone speculated that the Big Bang (if it happened) came from an earlier universe?  I know there are theories that ours is not the only universe.  Hence, my question.

[hazelm]

I would start another thread on plate tectonics if you are interested in geology of the earth.

 

I would start another thread on the Big bang as well if you are interested in the Big Bang theory. The term big bang stuck after hoyle used it as a joke on a radio show, and seems to still be used in reference to the various big bang theories and inflationery universe theories which are not the same. The Universe did not start out from some singularity x billions of years ago as originally theorized by the Catholic Priest Lematre. The original theory had massive problems and has evolved significantly. There are also a host of competing theories for the origins of the universe. Its like a candy store, you can take your pick. Standard model goes for the inflationery universe led by Andrei Lindes, it supercedes Alan Guths model and fixes some problems, however there are lots of things in the universe that cant be explained by this model either. I tend to like alternative theories when it comes to this, so am probably not the best one to ask. Ie most physcists believe in the zero energy universe, which began without a big bang via the unfolding of space time.

 

Nuclear Synthesis is accepted by all parties as forming the heavier elements in the universe from Hydrogen. This is a well understood process. But where the original Hydrogen came from to form the gas clouds or Nebulae which then collapse to form the early stars is perhaps a little speculative depending on your viewpoint. I personally do not believe the Big Bang model. Just to say all the matter and energy in the universe appeared in a billionth of a second from a singularity in space is ludicrous for me at least, I prefer a slower more gentile beginning maintaining the laws of thermodynamics in a zero energy universe which I think you will find is more in line with current thought.  I think I both Guth and Linde  also think along the lines of a zero energy universe, heres a presentation of Lindes http://energy.nobelprize.org/presentations/linde.pdf and a wiki Link on Guth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth

 

Absolutely right on your first suggestion.  But, your second?  Quoting the first line of the OP:  "At present, the big bang cosmology cannot explain galaxy formation ......"

 

Thank you for the rest.  Have a good day.