I propose to challenge the big bang theory and the accretion theory and offer an alternative to the nature and origin of the universe. The big bang theory and the accretion model have been challenged with almost every new discovery of fact. First, the big bang theory was conceived under the notion that we live in a expanding, but decelerating universe. The universal expansion was proved by 'red shift' but its acceleration was proved long after. The big bang should have met its end right there, but no alternative to heavy element creation has kept it alive. When background radiation was discovered, it was predicted that it would be 'smooth'. It was found not to be smooth but instead had fluctuations across space. An experiment on board the space station was serendipitously and presumptuously found to be proof of accretion, but the controls for such an experiment were lacking. How a ball of dust and gas accretes into solar systems is completely unexplained. When scientists attempt to explain this event, they will say it 'somehow seems to have' flattened, started spinning and formed into a solar system. In early attempts to explain the nature of our own solar system based on the accretion model, it was suggested that large planets, especially gas giants, had to form far from their host star. The recent discovery of large extra-solar planets orbiting very close to their host star clearly refutes this notion. Two space probes were sent to the asteroid belt to prove the prediction that asteroids were accreted and would show evidence of this. Now, it is accepted that the asteroids show not evidence of accretion but instead are fragments, likely from a slow collision of two planets. At one time, accretion theory was happy to be the mother of these flat, spinning and spiral shaped galaxies we see across our universe. Later, it was shown that under the accretion model, these galaxies should be flying apart. Instead of this being the final nail in the coffin for the accretion theory, scientists worked and came up with 'dark matter' to keep them from flying apart. Scientistís willingness to preserve this accretion theory again is because of the heavy element factor. The accretion model predicted no moons beyond Mars would be active, yet there are many that are. Some of these active moons might be explained by pressure from their host star, but some are not. No current theory can explain the nature of super massive black holes or anything compressed beyond that of a neutron star. All these questionable factors that surround the big bang and accretion concepts are important, but even more important is that these theories are unable to explain why galaxies are spinning, flat and mostly spiral shaped. Also important is that there is no evidence of a super nova that happened near our solar system. The alternative answer to the nature and origin of our universe is without surprise very radical. Let us start with the planets. Planets are not 'formed' by accretion but instead are born from right our of their host star. Sunspots are the evidence of their birth. Just like coronal mass ejections, planetary ejections are so violent they left scars still visible to this day. In our own solar system, the planets resemble their host star in many ways. They have magnetospheres that shift periodically like the sun and their chemical makeup is very similar to that of the sun. The planets are moving very slowly away from the sun, naturally because that is where they came from. They spin in the direction of the suns rotation as would be predicted if they were ejected from the sun and they orbit at the suns equator. This is very important. The process is called equatorial discharge. Excess matter from a spinning object is always shed at the equator of that object. Our sun still contains excess matter that is shed almost weekly in the form of coronal mass ejections. Backing up in time, the sun was not only spinning faster, but had plenty of excess material to eject. One must be careful to challenge the idea that atomic matter could escape the gravitational pull of our sun. This is because it was once thought that no particles at all could escape the pull of the suns gravity. Recently an extra-solar planet was found to be rotating in the opposite direction of its suns rotation. Another was found to be rotating from pole to pole of its sun. These are simply anomalies. A large planet could swing a smaller planet on around to cause it to orbit opposite its suns rotation or even cause it to orbit pole to pole. The majority of planets being discovered outside our solar system orbit just like the ones in our solar system. None of these recent discoveries have found solar systems or planets to be in any stage of accretion. Next let us examine the stars. The stars in our galaxy are arranged in a spiral shape around the center. A simple experiment shows how this happens. Take a round sponge and run a pole through it. Now soak the sponge and spin the pole. You will see the water come out at the equator of the sponge and it will come out in the shape of a spiral. The sponge is the super massive black hole and the water represents the stars. One might ask how a SMBH with gravity that even light is unable to escape shed matter? A portion of the answer is that it is spinning very fast. Evidence of such events will determine which theory is correct. Right now, we are closely watching the stars that orbit the center of our galaxy. If we see a star going into the center, story of this alternative theory is ended. If something comes out, that should put and end to any doubt about this new idea. In the mean time, the only way to achieve a spiral shape is from equatorial discharge. To create a spiral shape under the accretion model, scientiests used a super computer taking millions of attempts just to produce something that looked more like a pizza. What is needed is a model that creates them every time as the sponge experiemt does. Not only does it explain our galaxies spiral shape, but it explains why our galaxy and others are so very flat. What is left is to explain why galaxies spin. Let us now look at the beginning of our expanding universe. Estimated at 13 billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was compressed into a 'matter core'. The particles in this core are the true fundamental particles of the universe. They are smaller than quarks. It takes millions of these tiny particles to make a single quark. These particles are shaped so that they can be arrayed so that when touching, there is no space in between. This also explains the nature of black holes. Protons and neutrons must first be broken down into the fundamental particles in order to be compressed to the level of a black hole. Even black holes are not completely compressed. There is space in between these tiny particles. It is at the matter core when these particles are fully compressed. Once this matter core is completely formed, it begins to dissolve. Particles surround the core and create a plasma field. When this field becomes heated, electric discharges begin to chip off pieces of it. When this happens it is just like when a magnet is broken. The matter core then repels the piece causes it to spin. As a piece begins to fly off, it is attacked by the plasma field and heats it. By the time it exits the field, it is now in a more liquid state. From there it begins to shed these tiny particles. It is at this point that atoms big and small are created. the result is a star. The variaty of these stars is a tribute to nature just as the variaty of planets and moons are.
Edited by AdminModulous, : added white space/paragraphs for easier reading
Edited by Jet Thomson, : At the suggestion of the administrator.
Welcome to EvC! An interesting proposal, but it's not quite ready for promotion. At the moment it seems to be fluttering between several possible debates.
So what would you like to discuss?
The failings of the Accretion model of planetary formation. The failed predictions of the big bang. The problems with our understanding of galaxy formation. The genesis of heavy elements. or the The Nature of Super Massive Black Holes.
The first topic seems to be the primary focus. You say that
quote:The most recent, large numbers of planets outside our solar system that do not fit the accretion model, come from a long list of discoveries that reveal the opposite of what scientists hoped or predicted.
Could you perhaps explain why extra-solar planets do not fit the accretion model? What other items are in the list of discoveries that are contrary to the accretion model?
You do mention something that might be on that list:
quote:The accretion model predicted no moons beyond Mars would be active, yet there are many that are.
Could you perhaps provide at least a link to somewhere that discusses this prediction, preferably with a brief explanation in your own words?
I do hope you get back to me, as I am keen to see this promoted and discussed.
Hello, First I would like to thank you for this wonderful opportunity to present my ideas. I also thank you very much for your kind assistance. It has allowed me to step back and see a bigger picture of things. Most all the challenges I have against the big bang and accretion models are taken from known sources and I do not want to rehash these well known challenges. I am prepared to challenge these models, but instead, I would much prefer to simply present my own theory that shows how planets come from their host star and how stars come from their host super massive black hole and that these black holes were sliced from a central core at the beginning of our known universe. The proposed title might be Alternative To Accretion Theory and the Big Bang. Is that possible? Thanks, Quentin Thomson
Why not edit the first post with the details of your 'Alternative To Accretion Theory and the Big Bang.', along with your argument as to why it should be accepted over standard models and we'll see if we can't have an interesting discussion.
If you want to leave the criticism of the present models for planetary formation in there, you should also describe how your alternative theory solves the problems.
You can look at what I have so far and perhaps suggest what you want sourced
I suspect that just about every statement will be asked to be backed up, but as this is your first PNT and I'm feeling generous, I'll promote this so further discussion can take place. Since the big bang seems to have taken a back seat, I've edited the thread title to reflect the focus of your thread.