THE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE

There is general consensus among current scientists that much of the material of our galaxy originated in a star and that there is a degree of evolution involved from impact of stray celestial objects.

There does not appear to be a bold effort to trace back the cycle to its beginning. There is a tendency to accept as the beginning the sun and at least the major planets. There may very well have been some moderately large chunks from the explosion of a star but it is more likely that the pieces were relatively small. Furthermore all the debris would have been moving in a long arc much as the arms of our galaxy extend out from the center. That is the normal configuration of the material from the explosion of a rotating body.

That would indicate a diffuse quantity of material with no body being sufficiently large to provide a stable center to create an orbiting system. With time however some of the larger pieces would drift together to form a stable center. There might in fact be considerable jockeying for control as the large concentration of matter haphazardly formed into large bodies.

Here is where thinking has been restricted by observation and accepted knowledge. The sun as opposed to current opinion, which is that it was born and is in the process of aging, was just another cold body. What is now our sun and all the planets continued to accumulate mass until the sun reached a point where it began to radiate energy. Prior to that time all the planets were cold and accumulated and retained solids, water, and gasses from the abundance in the area. The sun meanwhile was accumulating at a significant rate and soon began to radiate energy. That radiation heated the nearby planets and, depending on the level of gravity they had achieved relative to the temperature produced, could have stripped them of their volatile materials.

What I have just said is that our sun has been fueled just as a campfire would be. It is a very efficient energy producer but still continues to be fueled by space material.

If global warming afflicts our earth could we start to lose our moisture and atmosphere?

Unfortunately our loss would be a gain for the sun which might increase energy output.

It would appear that our regular sunspot activity is likely caused by an increase in fuel affected by the direction of the movement of our solar system through space and the location of the planets at various times. The outer planets may sweep space to accumulate mass and decrease the amount available to other planets and the sun. We do not know if they save us from horrendous sunspot activity or increase its variability.

It was easier to conclude first that the solar system had been created and that it was gradually dying than to attempt to analyze such a possibility as evolution. However, we are able to observe various degrees of rapid evolution in the accumulation of material in comets and in the massive cold outer planets that consist largely of accumulated gasses. Evolution does take place and time is not a restrictive factor. A significant increase in energy output from Jupiter could denude some of its nearby moons of their volatile surfaces and substantially increase further the energy output of Jupiter.

All of the above deals with only the development of the solar system from the debris of a star. It does however stress evolution all along the way. It is obvious that this is only one step along the way. It may have happened ten times or a billion times. How old is the universe? The real question 'academic' is how did it start? Very simple as indicated in the home page.

First there was unlimited space. What to do with it? Punch out the nothing to create two equal and opposite forces - 'attraction' and 'repulsion' -no material no energy required. These two forces being equal would have no effect and could mill about freely. Now a one in a trillion chance that the orientation of attraction and repulsion fell into place like the segments of a soccer ball could result in the creation of a proton. Such an orientation would encourage the orientation of surrounding attraction and repulsion to do the same. As the components clicked together to form protons there would be created a large void in that area. Material ('attraction' and 'repulsion) would rush in from infinity. The massive movement once started would be impossible to stop. That is where inertia fits in. The result would be the fusion of the hydrogen into heavier atoms at that point. We have the beginnings of a star and the vast clouds of hydrogen left over. No big bang ! No energy ! Just a big crunch.

As the quantity of material accumulated electrons that normally orbit the protons would find the space available for orbit decreasing and so would start to be pushed out of their orbits. The repulsion represented by the electron would be gone leaving the attraction represented by the proton. That is the gravity that represents the amount of electrons that have been repulsed from the interior. So it seems gravity is only coincidentally associated with mass (I prefer to call it inertia) and will not consistently reflect true quantity. It follows that gravity is the result of the condition of matter that is not only related to total mass but the density of matter.

Contemporary conventional wisdom that suggests that an immense cloud of dust and gas that had a total mass equal to the mass of our solar system would display an equivalent gravity that could collapse the cloud is nonsense. Such a cloud would continue forever except to the extent that the gravity of a body passing through the cloud would capture some of the dust and gas. That dust and gas is the material that contributes to the evolution of stars, planets and comets.

Since the Proton consists of a shell surrounding a large empty space there are limits to its capacity to withstand pressure. Therefore, when a star reaches a certain size the pressure would crush the proton, flinging 'attraction' and 'repulsion' and anything in its way violently into space to start a new Galaxy.
HOME PAGE