Why are we so sure that there is a need for dark matter?

[Dandav]

Gluon:

In the proton, the gluon fields binds the quarks together.

The gluon has fluctuations:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-typical-gluon-field-configuration-used-in-lattice-calculations-Figure-from-the-CSSM_fig5_239005752

 

 

However, a similar fluctuation exists also in EM radiation:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1939.0030

"Fluctuations in electromagnetic radiation"

"The wave fluctuations are here recalculated for a quantized electromagnetic field, and it is shown that the
result coincides with th6 statistical formula as far as can be expected, provided one overlooks the divergence of the zero energy. "

Therefore, can we consider the gluon as some sort of EM radiation cell that is locked in the proton?

If so, let's understand the real impact of the Gluon:

The gluon contributes more than 99% of the proton total mass.

Hence, we can claim that more than 99% of the proton mass is due Gluon (or EM radiation cell).

This can explain the difference in the mass of the SMBH to the total mass in all the stars in the galaxy.

In other words, the SMBH "eats" 50% of the total quarks & boson that it creates by his EM energy (one particle out of the particle/antiparticles pair)

However, in the accretion disc, due to the contribution of the EM energy (or EM radiation cell), the gluon is created in the proton and it contributes more than 99% from its total mass.

This process also explains why the SMBHs are so massive without any need to eat any sort of stars or galaxies from outside.

[Dandav]

Hawking radiation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

"Hawking's discovery followed a visit to Moscow in 1973, where the Soviet scientists Yakov Zel'dovich and Alexei Starobinsky convinced him that rotating black holes ought to create and emit particles, while Russian physicist Vladimir Gribov believed that even a non-rotating black hole should emit radiation. When Hawking did the calculation, he found to his surprise that it was true."

Therefore, Hawking found by his calculation that black hole can create and emit particles.

It is also stated:

"When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy and therefore some of its mass (mass and energy are related by Einstein's equation E = mc²). "

Now let's try to understand the real activity in the SMBH

It is fully correct that "When particles escape, the black hole loses a small amount of its energy". However, that energy lost is EM energy and not mass energy. In the same token, for any particle that escape outwards from the event horizon (into the accretion disc), the SMBH would increase its mass by one identical particle (or actually antiparticle).

In total the SMBH would lose the EM energy for two identical particles (particle and antiparticle) but would increase its mass by one particle.

However, due to tidal impact of the stars/gas clouds and even the new born particle around the SMBH it will regain new heat that would compensate the EM energy lost.

Therefore, the BH would never evaporate.

This also solve the black hole information paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_information_paradox

"The black hole information paradox^[1] is a puzzle that appears when the predictions of quantum mechanics and general relativity are combined.

The information paradox appears when one considers a process in which a black hole is formed through a physical process and then evaporates away entirely through Hawking radiation."

Hence, the SMBH would constantly increase its mass due to new tidal energy.

Therefore, the same tidal impact that force the galaxy to get its spiral shape, would also help the SMBH to increase its total mass over time.

Edited January 13, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

Gas Clouds

Our scientists claim that the gas clouds look like gas but behave like stars and they are correct.

https://www.universetoday.com/139437/there-are-strange-objects-near-the-center-of-the-galaxy-they-look-like-gas-but-behave-like-stars/

They don't really understand the real function of those objects:

“These compact dusty stellar objects move extremely fast and close to our Galaxy’s supermassive black hole. It is fascinating to watch them move from year to year. How did they get there? And what will they become? They must have an interesting story to tell.”

So let me help them:

1. How did they get there?

The gas clouds get their matter from the new born "molecular outflows emanating from AGNs".

15 hours ago, Dandav said:

https://www.universetoday.com/138456/outflows-black-holes-creating-new-molecules-destruction/

"In the past few years, astronomers have also observed fast molecular outflows emanating from AGNs which left them puzzled... But according to a new study produced by researchers from Northwestern University, these molecules were actually born within the winds themselves."

2. "What will they become?"

As the gas cloud cross near the SMBH, it gets the requested energy that is needed to crystalize the gas clouds to form stars, planets and moons. Several stars could be formed in each gas cloud and they will orbit around each other.

https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/06/13/new-evidence-that-all-stars-are-born-in-pairs/

 “Based on our simple model, we say that nearly all stars form with a companion. 

Therefore, stars in our galaxy orbit in pairs, triplets, or even quadruple-star systems."

3. "They must have an interesting story to tell."

The story is as follow:

Each star in the galaxy had been born in those gas clouds with its planets and moons. Therefore, in each star system, (as a solar system) all the planets and moons had been born at the same day and with the same Gas/molecules as their host star.

Let's try to understand the chemical composition of the Sun:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

The Sun's original chemical composition was inherited from the interstellar medium out of which it formed. Originally it would have contained about 71.1% hydrogen, 27.4% helium, and 1.5% heavier elements

Hence, each planet and each moon had been born as a gas object with about 71.1% hydrogen, 27.4% helium, and 1.5% heavier elements.

Over time, while the heavier elements had been concentrated in the core of the Earth & the moon, the gas as Hydrogen and helium had been evaporated.

Therefore, we get so nice ball shape of our rocky planet and moon.

As of today, the Earth and the Moon left with only the 1.5% heavier elements.

Therefore, on their first day, their total mass was 100/1.5 = 66.66 times heavier than today and they were closer.

Under this starting point, it is very clear that the gravity force between the earth - moon was significantly higher than the gravity force between the Sun - Moon.

Therefore, although today the Sun- moon gravity is stronger by 2.2 than the gravity force of the Earth-Moon now it is clear why at the first day the moon had been locked to the earth by gravity and not directly to the Sun.

 

[Dandav]

In the Milky Way’s Central Region New stars and new BHs are created:

https://www.sci.news/astronomy/stellar-mass-black-holes-milky-ways-central-region-05885.html

10,000 Stellar-Mass Black Holes Exist in Milky Way’s Central Region, Astronomers Say

Each one of those BHs would be under tidal forces from all the nearby stars/BHs

The tidal force would increase its internal heat and therefore its EM power/energy would also be increased.

As long as the BH have enough EM energy, it would create new particle pair. From each pair it will "eat"" one particle and increase its mass The other particle would be ejected outwards from the BH. It's almost impossible to see this process as currently their EM power is quite low and therefore, their pair creation process is quite low.

Over time, they would continue to increase their mass as they would drift outwards (with all the nearby stars) from the Bulge though the bar arms and then though the spiral arms into the plane around the Milky way.

If they would be lucky and find themselves in a star cluster after ejected from the edge of the spiral arm, they would continue the pair particle production as they would still get the tidal heat from the nearby stars in the cluster.

By doing so, that star cluster would be transformed into dwarf galaxy.

https://www.space.com/milky-way-dwarf-galaxies-alignment-dark-matter

"The Milky Way galaxy is surrounded by smaller dwarf galaxies."

"If you look at the velocities of the satellite galaxies today, they are moving along the plane, but what we did that's really new and exciting is forecast where their orbits are taking them in a billion years time," Carlos Frenk, a cosmologist at the University of Durham in the U.K. and a member of Sawalha's team, told Space.com. "They just happen to be in the plane today, that's the coincidence of the whole thing, and in a billion years or less they will leave the plane."

"Although it seems as though the odds of us being around at the same time as the satellite galaxies are all lined up in the same plane are slim, coincidences do happen"

"Scientists may have explained the mysterious distribution of small satellite galaxies around our Milky Way that has long puzzled astronomers, but not everyone is in agreement."

I have a message to those puzzled astronomers:

Sorry, there is no coincidences in our universe!

All of those dwarf galaxies have been ejected from the MY galaxy plane as star cluster with at least one BH.

By using the tidal energy from the nearby stars, the BH in the cluster would increase its mass. As it increases its mass, it would drift by gravity force to the center of the cluster. At this location it would get the maximal tidal impact from all the stars in the cluster. Hence, the BH would increase its EM energy and its new particle pair production process. Over time this star cluster would be transformed into one of those dwarf galaxies that we observe along the MW galaxy plane.

Therefore, there is no coincidences.

Each one of those dwarf galaxies should be considered as the baby galaxy of the MW.

Hence, the MW is the real mother of all those dwarf galaxies that are moving along its plane!

Edited January 14, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

Each one of those dwarf galaxies could be evolved into massive spiral galaxy.

We see that process Infront of our eyes!

https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceshot-hydrogen-bridge-connects-two-galaxies

Hydrogen 'Bridge' Connects Two Galaxies

"The faint radio emission of the resulting hydrogen "bridge," the red material stretching from Andromeda in the direction of Triangulum"

"The bridge, described here yesterday at the 220th meeting of the American Astronomical Society, extends over hundreds of thousands of light-years, and the hydrogen gas appears to be clumped into clouds a few thousand light-years across."

That Hydrogen 'Bridge' proves that the Triangulum (which is significantly smaller than Andromeda) was connected in the past to the main galaxy.

Actually, in the past it was one of those dwarf/baby galaxies that orbit around the plane of their mother galaxy.

It seems to me that Triangulum is crying with hydrogen tears as he is forced to move away from his mother.

We all know that galaxies have no eyes to see and no brain to feel or to think.

However, assuming that they have this ability, I would like to tell them the following:

To Andromeda - You should be proud of your Triangulum child. Please look, he already had been transformed into spiral galaxy.

To Triangulum - Please don't cry. Your mother loves you. Sooner or later, you would be old enough to have your own dwarf galaxies. This is the nature of life. At some point we must leave our mother and cross the sky (In your case - cross the space). 

Please be careful. The Milky Way is in your way. Good luck for you!

Edited January 14, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

In the following article it is stated:

"Astronomers have witnessed a tidal disruption event, where a star whose material was shredded by a nearby supermassive black hole releases an bright flash of light."

"'Spaghettification' Is the Most Badass Way for a Star to Die"

As it is stated that our Astronomers have witnessed a tidal disruption event, does it mean that they really observe a star whose material was shredded by a nearby supermassive black hole?

What they really observe?

It is stated:

"Astronomers have spotted a rare and radiant pulse of light—the last gasp of a dying star that has been sucked toward the center of a supermassive black hole and shredded into sinuous strings of stardust.

"The flare occurred just 215 million light-years away from Earth, closer than any other previously observed tidal disruption event."

Hence, those Astronomers have spotted a pulse of light or a flare.

That's all!!!

However, based on their imagination, that flare /Pulse of light should be used as an indication (they even used the word - witnessed) for a dying star that has been sucked toward the center of a supermassive black hole and shredded into sinuous strings of stardust.

Sorry, those Astronomers mislead themselves as they didn't observe any sort of dying star.

That flare / Pulse of light is a very normal outcome due to EM radiation & new particle creation and they even call it tidal disruption event.

That name is fully correct.

Due to tidal event, heat would be transformed into the SMBH.

That heat would increase the EM energy which would create the flare and the radiation.

However, we all know that due to tidal event and the heat energy transformation, the orbital object must spiral outwards.

I have already explained that tidal event:

 

On 12/27/2022 at 6:02 PM, Dandav said:

in order to understand how Tidal works, let's look at the following image:

 

https://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm

It is stated:

1. Moon pulls on Earth's tidal bulge to slow down Earth rotation

2. Earth tidal bulge pulls Moon ahead in its orbit - Moon spirals outwards in its orbit.

So, how can they claim that due to tidal event stars should fall inwards while it is clear that those stars should spiral outwards?

Therefore, it's time to ask our Astronomers to tell us what they really observe instead of adding imagination dying star into the 'Spaghettification'.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

I hope that by now, it is clear why the "Tidal event" solve the full spiral galaxy structure and its activity.

Not just by 95% or even by 99%, but by full 100% and it works as follow:

1. Tidal event between the SMBH to the orbital stars in the galaxy generates internal heat.

2. That heat is the source for the mighty SMBH' EM energy that is transformed to new particle pairs (bosons, quarks..) near the event horizon

3. Due to Lorentz force, while one particle falls into the SMBH and increases the SMBH' mass, the other one is ejected outwards into the inner edge of the accretion disc.

4.  In the accertion disc, the same tidal event would force the new born quarks to spiral outwards, while the mighty EM energy and high pressure in the disc would add the gluon and transform the quarks into new real protons. Later on the protons would be transformed mainly to hydrogen but also to all variety of atoms & molecular. As they get out from the outer edge of the accretion disc, all the new born atoms and molecular would be ejected as a jet stream at 0.3c by the mighty SMBH' EM power.

5. Those new born molecules would eventually fall back into the galactic disc and be gathered in one of the G gas clouds. Due to the gravity force of the SMBH New multi star systems would be form in that gas cloud. Any Star there would be formed at the same time with all its planets & moons. Each one of the objects would share exactly the same gas in the cloud. Therefore, all the planets and moons would look as gas balls at their first day. Over time as all the moons and some of the small planets would lose their light gas, they would be called a rocky moons and planets.

6. In the Central Region of the galaxy new BHs would also be created: https://www.sci.news/astronomy/stellar-mass-black-holes-milky-ways-central-region-05885.html

7. Due to Tidal event between the bulge and the spiral arms, the Bulge would be squeezed and be forced to eject stars & BHs into the two Symmetrical bar arms. Any star/BH in the bar arm would be locked by gravity to the nearby stars/BH and therefore it must orbit around a local center of mass. From outside, we would see that the star/BH is wobbling.

7. Those locked stars/BH in the Bar would increase their motion linearity as they move further away from the Bulge due to the linear shape of the Bar. At some point they would be pushed outwards from the edge of the bar as splinter of stars directly to the base of the spiral arms. Therefore, the Bar increases the length of the spiral arms from inside and transform the spherical motion of stars in the bulge to disc motion in the ring.

8. Therefore, although, the edge of the bar looks constantly connected to the base of the spiral arm, each arm would rotate/spin around the galaxy at different velocity. This solves the "winding problem".

9. The Spiral arm is formed by splinters of stars that had been delivered from the Bar. All those splinters are locked together in a row by gravity and form the long spiral arm shape. The arm gets narrower as we move further away from its base (3000LY at the base, 1000LY at our location, 400Ly at the edge). However, there is a possibility for narrower/wider spots in the arm at different location. There could be also gateways and bridges between the arms. However, in any local section of the arm the density of stars should be quite fixed (in our location - 512 G stars per 100LY sphere). 

 10. Any star in the galactic disc is locked by gravity to the local nearby stars group and therefore it has a "local orbital motion" which seems as wobbling motion from outside. If the star would go out from the nearby group of stars, it would be ejected from the galactic disc as a rocket (hypervelocity” star). The total velocity of star is a sum of: Local motion + Outwards motion in the arm + Motion of the arm. The star will go with the arm wherever it goes. 

11. After long journey, from the bulge though the bar to the spiral arm, any star/BH in the spiral arm would get to the edge of the spiral arm. At that point, the stretch force on the arm is maximal. Therefore, the diameter of the edge of the spiral arm is so narrow (400LY) comparing to its base (3000LY).

12. The bars and spiral arms are long living objects. they would keep their shape for unlimited time. However, the time living of any given star/BH in the arms is limited.

13. At some moment, the star/BH at the edge of the spiral arm would be ejected outwards from the spiral arm with its nearby stars/BH group. once they do so, this group of would be disconnected also from the galactic disc.  Hence, the group that had been called "splinter" while they have ejected from the edge of the Bar arm into the base of the spiral arm, would be transformed into globular cluster as they are ejected from the edge of the spiral arm at the galactic plane.

14. Tidal event between the BH to the orbital stars in the cluster would generate internal heat that would be transformed into EM energy. Over time those clusters would be transformed into dwarf galaxies that orbit at the galactic plane of the galaxy.

15. As the dwarf galaxy would drift away from its mother' galaxy, it would be transformed into baby spiral galaxy (as – Triangulum, with reference to its mother – Andromeda)

16. There is no need for dark matter to explain the activity in the spiral galaxy. it is all about tidal event gravity force!!!

17. Now our mission is to understand how that activity in spiral galaxy can explain the entire universe observation without any need for dark energy.

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

In order to answer how the Universe really works, we first must except the observation as is.

There is no coincidence in our Universe.

Whatever we see is whatever we have!!!

On 1/14/2023 at 7:12 AM, Dandav said:

https://www.space.com/milky-way-dwarf-galaxies-alignment-dark-matter

"The Milky Way galaxy is surrounded by smaller dwarf galaxies."

"If you look at the velocities of the satellite galaxies today, they are moving along the plane, but what we did that's really new and exciting is forecast where their orbits are taking them in a billion years time," Carlos Frenk, a cosmologist at the University of Durham in the U.K. and a member of Sawalha's team, told Space.com. "They just happen to be in the plane today, that's the coincidence of the whole thing, and in a billion years or less they will leave the plane."

"Although it seems as though the odds of us being around at the same time as the satellite galaxies are all lined up in the same plane are slim, coincidences do happen"

"Scientists may have explained the mysterious distribution of small satellite galaxies around our Milky Way that has long puzzled astronomers, but not everyone is in agreement."

I have a message to those puzzled astronomers:

Sorry, there is no coincidences in our universe!

The satellite galaxies are all lined up in the same plane as they all are children of the Milky way.

In the same token we can observe duck swinging in a row.

https://www.languagehumanities.org/where-did-the-term-get-your-ducks-in-a-row-come-from.htm

All of those ducks are one family, while all satellite galaxies that are lined up in the same plane are also one family.

The Baby Ducks follow after their mother duck, as the Baby satellite galaxies follow their mother galaxy

The Hydrogen 'Bridge' between Triangulum and Andromeda also proves that it is her child.

On 1/14/2023 at 8:24 AM, Dandav said:

https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceshot-hydrogen-bridge-connects-two-galaxies

Hydrogen 'Bridge' Connects Two Galaxies

"The faint radio emission of the resulting hydrogen "bridge," the red material stretching from Andromeda in the direction of Triangulum"

"The bridge, described here yesterday at the 220th meeting of the American Astronomical Society, extends over hundreds of thousands of light-years, and the hydrogen gas appears to be clumped into clouds a few thousand light-years across."

That Hydrogen 'Bridge' proves that the Triangulum (which is significantly smaller than Andromeda) was connected in the past to the main galaxy.

Actually, in the past it was one of those dwarf/baby galaxies that orbit around the plane of their mother galaxy.

It would be very helpful if we could calculate how long it took to Triangulum to transform into that mid-size spiral galaxy  from a new born BH at the central region of its mother galaxy(Andromeda).

On 1/14/2023 at 7:12 AM, Dandav said:

https://www.sci.news/astronomy/stellar-mass-black-holes-milky-ways-central-region-05885.html

10,000 Stellar-Mass Black Holes Exist in Milky Way’s Central Region, Astronomers Say

By verifying the time that is needed for a BH to be transformed into spiral galaxy that generates new baby BHs and the velocity that it is moving away from its mother galaxy, we can understand how the entire universe really works.

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

Explanation about our Universe

Let's assume that long time ago there was just one spiral galaxy with her daughter in the empty & infinite Universe.

Let's call this Spiral galaxy - SG, while her daughter spiral galaxy would be called - SG1

T - The time that it took Triangulum to transform from a new born BH at the inner reign of Andromeda to real spiral galaxy with the ability to generate its first baby BH.

V - the velocity that Triangulum is moving away from its mother galaxy.

There was nothing in the empty universe except of those two galaxies.

After the first T time, SG1 would have a new spiral galaxy daughter that is called SG2.

After the second T time, SG2 would have a new spiral galaxy daughter that is called SG3.

After n times T time, SGn-1 would have a new spiral galaxy daughter that is called SGn.

SG1 is the first generation of SG.

SGn is the n generation of SG.

I call this scenario as galaxy over galaxy (rocket over rocket or train over train)

Let's assume that all the new born galaxies are moving exactly at the same direction (As SG1 from SG).

By Using the classical (Galilean) formula the n generation galaxy (SPn) is moving away from the main mother galaxy (SP) at a velocity which is equivalent to n*V.

However, Due to relativity, it can't move faster than the speed of light relative to SP.

In following image we see train over train:

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/relativistic-velocity-addition-c5349ad07907

 

 

In this case, A is SP (Mother galaxy), B is the first-generation galaxy SP1 and C is SP2.

"The question posed is — What is the relative velocity of C with respect to A?

Using classical (Galilean) formula for relative velocity, we would get —

Hence, 

 v(B, A) = 0.75c 

v(C, B) = 0.75c

v(C, A) = v(B, A) + v(C, B) = 0.75c + 0.75c = 1.5c 

That is — to A, C would seem to be travelling at a velocity greater than that of light! But surely that can’t be possible, right? It would breach the well established result which dictates no object can travel with speed greater than that of light.

So, where lies the problem? Did we go wrong with our calculations somewhere? The answer, it turns out, resides within Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity.

The formula for velocity addition in the relativistic world is as follow:

v(C, A) = (v(B, A) + v(C, B)) / (1+ (v(C, A) + v(B, A))/c^2) = 24/25c "

Therefore, even if due to Galilean formula the last galaxy generation SPn should move away from SP at 10 times the speed of light, due to Einstein relativity law if we stay at SP we should still see it.

That exactly what we see in our real Universe.

"Hubble found that the farther a galaxy is, the faster it appears to be moving away from us."

https://scitechdaily.com/mystery-of-universes-expansion-rate-hubble-data-shows-that-something-weird-is-going-on/

Therefore, based on this simple explanation that is called Galaxy over galaxy, we can perfectly understand the observation without any need for any sort of expansion or inflation in space.

In any location that we will be in the Universe - we will see exactly the same view.

However, in order to achieve that goal, the universe age must be quite old.

If we assume that the universe is infinite in its size, then it also must be infinite in its age.

 

Edited January 21, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation

The CMBR is the radiation of our current infinite universe.

I can explain the black body spectrum and the temp/energy, unfortunately it seems that there is no fit with the redshift fixed value as follow:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR) is microwave radiation that fills all space

" a sufficiently sensitive radio telescope detects a faint background glow that is almost uniform and is not associated with any star, galaxy, or other object. This glow is strongest in the microwave region of the radio spectrum."

Key features of the CMBR:

1. black body spectrum:

Graph of cosmic microwave background spectrum measured by the FIRAS instrument on the COBE, the most precisely measured black body spectrum in nature.^[9] The error bars are too small to be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve.

 

I can easily show that this black body spectrum proves that the universe is infinite.

2. Temp & energy

The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of 2.72548±0.00057 K.^[

"The energy density of the CMB is 0.260 eV/cm³ (4.17×10⁻¹⁴ J/m³) which yields about 411 photons/cm³.^[20]

The temp and energy give an indication for the density of matter in the infinite universe

3. redshift of around z ⋍ 1100.^[84]

I would expet to get a wide range of redshift spectrum and not just one fixed value.

That redshift of 1100 is OK as long as it just the peak of the redshift spectrum.

Our sciemtists calim that:

" The spectral radiance dE_ν/dν peaks at 160.23 GHz, in the microwave range of frequencies, corresponding to a photon energy of about 6.626×10⁻⁴ eV. "

Hence, as there is a peak in the microwave range of frequencies, it is expected to get a peak in the redshift.

However, if our scientists can only detect just one fixed redshift value which is ONLY - 1100 then it indicates that there is an error in my explanation.

Any idea about the real value of the redshift?

Is there any possibility that we detect a wide spectrum of redshift in the CMBR and not just one fixed value?

Edited January 22, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

CMBR - Redshift

I have just found an excellent explanation about the CMBR redshift

It is stated:

https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/what-is-the-redshift-of-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb/

What is the redshift of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB)?

"Mark asked how we know the redshift of the CMB if it has no emission or absorption lines, which is the usual way to determine redshifts of e.g. stars and galaxies."

So, there is no emission or absorption lines in the CMBR and therefore there is no way to extract the redshift value from the CMBR data.

However, our scientists used their understanding about the Big Bang theory in order to create a formula for the redshift:

1. The requested temp that is needed to for the electrons to finally combine with the protons and form neutral hydrogen. That temp is estimated for 3,000K

"as the Universe expands, the temperature just decreases in inverse proportion to its size. Double the size of the Universe, and the temperature will halve.

When the Universe had cooled to about 3,000K it was cool enough for the electrons to finally combine with the protons and form neutral hydrogen. At this temperature the photons were not energetic enough to ionise any hydrogen atoms, and the electrons had lost enough thermal energy that they too could not ionise electrons bound to protons. Finally, for the first time in the Universe’s history, neutral hydrogen atoms could form."

2. The current CMBR temp:

"so, the blackbody produced at the time of decoupling will have retained its blackbody spectrum through to the current epoch. But, because the Universe has expanded, the peak of the spectrum will have been stretched by the expansion of space (so it is not correct to think of the CMB spectrum as having cooled down, rather than space has expanded and stretched its peak emission to a lower temperature). The peak of a blackbody spectrum is related to its temperature in a very precise way, it is given by Wien’s displacement law, 

"In 1990 the FIRAS instrument on the NASA satellite COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) measured the spectrum of the CMB to high precision, and found it to be currently at a temperature of  (as an aside, the spectrum measured by FIRAS was the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever observed in nature)."

3. The redshift formula 

"It is thus easy to calculate the current redshift of the CMB, it is given by

and “voilà”, that is the redshift of the CMB.  Simples"

Sorry, there is no need for any sort of expansion in our universe.

We only observe the expansion in the galaxies and not any expansion in the space itself.

Remember - whatever we see is whatever we have!

I have clearly explained this galaxies expansion mechanism by galaxy over galaxy generations.

The Black body radiation of the CMBR PROVES that we are living in an infinite universe which its age is also infinite.

The current calculated redshift value is a direct product of the BBT idea.

Therefore, if that BBT is not fully correct, then this fixed calculated redshift value is also incorrect.

The simple and clear message that:

"the redshift of the CMB if it has no emission or absorption lines" is fully correlated with my explanation.

We get the CMBR from all the stars/galaxies/matter in the entire infinite universe around us. Therefore, it is expected to observe wide spectrum of redshift in the CMBR radiation. As each photon/radiation might come from different distance it is impossible to distinguish between the redshift of each photon. Therefore, we actually can't see any sort of emission or absorption lines in the CMBR.

Hence, so far, all the observations including the missing redshift in the CMBR data fully correlated with my explanation.

I offer a solution which fits the observations by 100%, no less than that!

Edited January 24, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

Missing redshift in the CMBR

If it is correct that: "the redshift of the CMB has no emission or absorption lines" then we all must agree that in the CMBR data there is no redshift at all.

However, based on the BBT theory the calculated redshift should be 1100.

I wonder how anyone can claim that the redshift value of the CMBR is 1100 while now we understand that it is just incorrect.

Sorry, our scientists can't mislead themselves and mislead us.

They have to highlight the contradiction between the calculated/expectation redshift based on the BBT to the verification/observation based on real data of the CMBR.

As there is no fit between this calculated value to the real redshift data in the CMBR it proves that there is a severe problem with the BBT.

Edited January 25, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

Recombination

https://thecuriousastronomer.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/what-is-the-redshift-of-the-cosmic-microwave-background-cmb/

"When the Universe had cooled to about 3,000K it was cool enough for the electrons to finally combine with the protons and form neutral hydrogen. At this temperature the photons were not energetic enough to ionise any hydrogen atoms, and the electrons had lost enough thermal energy that they too could not ionise electrons bound to protons. Finally, for the first time in the Universe’s history, neutral hydrogen atoms could form.

For reasons that I have never properly understood, astronomers and cosmologists tend to call this event recombination, although really it was combination, without the ‘re’ as it was happening for the first time. A term I prefer more is decoupling, it is when matter and radiation in the Universe decoupled, and the radiation was free to travel through the Universe. Before decoupling, the photons could not travel very far before they scattered off free electrons; after decoupling they were free to travel and this is the radiation we see as the CMB. "

Why the above recombination process is not realistic:

1. Electron creation:

Electron has electric charge. Therefore, as I have already explained there is no way to create an electron (or any charged particle) without real source of electric charge.

Electromagnetic energy is the ONLY valid source in the nature for electric charge.

The BBT doesn't offer any real source of EM energy. Therefore, it is not realistic to hope that the Big Bang can create even a single electron.

2. Pair annihilation

Even if the BBT could offer EM energy and somehow create electron/quark/boson, there is still a problem with annihilation process. any new created particle must come with its antiparticle. Therefore, somehow there is a need for force to split the pair before the annihilation process:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production

"According to quantum mechanics, particle pairs are constantly appearing and disappearing as a quantum foam. In a region of strong gravitational tidal forces, the two particles in a pair may sometimes be wrenched apart before they have a chance to mutually annihilate. When this happens in the region around a black hole, one particle may escape while its antiparticle partner is captured by the black hole."

After the Big Bang there was no strong gravitational & tidal forces no BH and no EM source of energy. Therefore, any pair that popped up would mutually annihilate.

Not one pair of a million and not one of a trillion could escape from this mutually annihilate process.

Lorenz force is the ONLY valid force that can split between the new born charged particle/antiparticle pair. However, Lorentz force can only work under EM field/Energy.

3. Gluon

I have already introduced the high similarity between the fluctuation of the Gluon to the EM field fluctuation.

On 1/13/2023 at 12:56 PM, Dandav said:

The gluon has fluctuations:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-typical-gluon-field-configuration-used-in-lattice-calculations-Figure-from-the-CSSM_fig5_239005752

 

 

However, a similar fluctuation exists also in EM radiation:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1939.0030

"Fluctuations in electromagnetic radiation"

"The wave fluctuations are here recalculated for a quantized electromagnetic field, and it is shown that the
result coincides with th6 statistical formula as far as can be expected, provided one overlooks the divergence of the zero energy. "

Therefore, the Gluon should be considered as some sort of EM energy that is locked in the proton and contributes more than 99% from its mass.

4. Atom

Based on all the above, Atom should be considered as a cell of EM energy. Without real source of EM energy there is no way to get even one atom in the entire Universe. The Atom mass is based on EM energy.

5. Recombination 

As the BBT doesn't offer real source of EM energy, it can't create any atom at any temp. Therefore, the recombination idea is just not realistic.

 

Edited January 26, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

E = mc²

https://www.britannica.com/science/E-mc2-equation

"E = m c², equation in German-born physicist Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity that expresses the fact that mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other. In the equation, the increased relativistic mass (m) of a body times the speed of light squared (c²) is equal to the kinetic energy (E) of that body."

I have proved that Atom mass is based on EM energy = E(em).

Hence, without E(em) there is no atom and no mass.

Therefore, the correct formula for any Atom / particle mass should be as follow:

m = E(em) / c²

However, when we extract that E(em) energy from the Atom mass (in atomic bomb or in the fusion activity at the sun), it is transformed into kinetic energy.

Therefore, the kinetic energy of the body is:

E = mc²

Edited January 26, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

 

Gravity force

The gravity force formula is as follow:

F= G m1 m2 / r²

However, the Atom mass is based on EM energy = E(em).

On 1/26/2023 at 7:34 AM, Dandav said:

the correct formula for any Atom / particle mass should be as follow:

m = E(em) / c²

Hence,

m1 = E1(em) / c²

m2 = E2(em) / c²

F = G * ( E1(em) / c² * E2(em) / c² ) / r²

F = G * ( E1(em) * E2(em) ) / (r*c)²

Therefore. gravity force is a direct outcome from the EM energy/force in the mass.

Hence, Gravity force is a sub-EM force!

Take out the EM energy from the Atom and you have no mass in that Atom and no gravity.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

Dark matter:

We can't see the dark matter as it has no EM energy.

If there was any EM energy in that dark matter, it was expected to detect its radiation.

I have just proved that gravity works only on mass that have real EM energy.

Even if there was a dark matter, then this matter won't have any EM energy and any mass.  Therefore, it can't set any gravity force on real mass!

Hence, the idea that dark matter (without EM energy / radiation) can set gravity force of real mass - is just not realistic.

Edited January 28, 2023 by Dandav

[Dandav]

strong force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction

"The strong interaction or strong force is a fundamental interaction that confines quarks into proton, neutron, and other hadron particles. The strong interaction also binds neutrons and protons to create atomic nuclei, where it is called the nuclear force.

Most of the mass of a common proton or neutron is the result of the strong interaction energy; the individual quarks provide only about 1% of the mass of a proton. At the range of 10⁻¹⁵ m (slightly more than the radius of a nucleon), the strong force is approximately 100 times as strong as electromagnetism, 10⁶ times as strong as the weak interaction, and 10³⁸ times as strong as gravitation.^[1]

The strong interaction is observable at two ranges and mediated by two force carriers. On a larger scale (of about 1 to 3 fm), it is the force (carried by mesons) that binds protons and neutrons (nucleons) together to form the nucleus of an atom. On the smaller scale (less than about 0.8 fm, the radius of a nucleon), it is the force (carried by gluons) that holds quarks together to form protons, neutrons, and other hadron particles."

The strong force is the gluon that binds the three quarks into one proton.

That gluon acts as EM cell.

On 1/26/2023 at 5:43 AM, Dandav said:

3. Gluon

I have already introduced the high similarity between the fluctuation of the Gluon to the EM field fluctuation.

On 1/13/2023 at 12:56 PM, Dandav said:

The gluon has fluctuations:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/A-typical-gluon-field-configuration-used-in-lattice-calculations-Figure-from-the-CSSM_fig5_239005752

 

 

However, a similar fluctuation exists also in EM radiation:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1939.0030

"Fluctuations in electromagnetic radiation"

"The wave fluctuations are here recalculated for a quantized electromagnetic field, and it is shown that the
result coincides with th6 statistical formula as far as can be expected, provided one overlooks the divergence of the zero energy. "

Expand  

Therefore, the Gluon should be considered as some sort of EM energy that is locked in the proton and contributes more than 99% from its mass.

Therefore, the strong force should also be considered as a Sub-EM force

Edited January 28, 2023 by Dandav