(work against the mainstream)
Author : Luis Biarge Baldellou – Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
How I say in 1a : By the first law of thermodynamics we know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, same occurs with space, so this is a corollary or addiction to the first law of thermodynamics: space, matter, time and nothing physical can neither be created nor destroyed, some can be transformed how the energy, some can be compressed, but nothing can be created. (Time is sequential and we can say it’s created continuously, but you can’t create a day between another two).
1.1h – Time can’t neither be created nor destroyed
Time is created from present to future, but cannot to be created nor destroyed between 2 moments in the past in same form that 1h
This radiation called “cosmic microwave background radiation” or dark matter are radiations emitted by stars before light (in formation), gas clouds, mass like Jupiter, … This zone is the past before the first illuminated stars and equivalent to our near Universe before first stars. Probably is only hydrogen clouds creating first stars because in that past probably there is only hydrogen and no other elements yet.
The dark matter theory know until now is against physic laws and also all the expansion theory and Big Bang theory.
Gravity compresses matter and also slow time … but can’t compress space.
The proof is offered by black holes that can’t compress space since if it can make they would create waves by space fault and all these faults (there are many black holes) would need adjust by all the Universe and this would be notable since there is not instantaneous. The fault of space can’t be adjusted with other expansion of near space, also the space fault can’t be attenuated by distance and by that is against physic laws.
An example two-dimensional would be an effect similar to push from a sheet, but with not instantaneous effect and more near push from many point of the sheet. Another better example one-dimensional is a line of people where one person goes out and line is adjusted with delays (it’s not instantaneous) and another infinite line where this occurs in many points.
If space would can compress this would be against physics laws: instantaneous, Hubble’s law, …
It’s more that a hypothesis. This hypothesis needs be compatible with the geodesic over that travel the light, by that go the next 4 hypotheses:
The light traveling near gravitational objects follow the geodesic curved, but this curved space can neither expand nor compress the space how I say in the previous hypothesis.
Graphics normally show over spatial curvature, geodesic and wormhole has easy explication in 2d, but not in 3d and don’t explain what happens with the curved or compress space, they are how stones launch to a beach of sand.
We know that light is curved when travels near gravitational objects, but being that space can neither compress nor expand and by that seem few probably the space curvature (previous hypothesis) needs to be by another cause.
The curvature of light and/or geodesic can’t be by space compression.
I have cleared in point before that space can’t be compressed by gravity how proving black holes and that offers the way to create this new hypothesis.
Also can arrive to this hypothesis by “reduction to the absurd” since if a space would leave to be space by compressing a bigger space from this, what is this space?
How the previous it’s not possible in the Universe (according to physic laws) because it would need a notable effect to fill with near space the vacuum space and transmit it by the entire Universe. Also, it can’t curve the space how is demonstrated by the gravity incremented in many black holes, stars, …
A gas can be compressed, but is the same quantity of gas in less volume or space, but by this the space (3d dimension) can’t be compressed (is mathematical impossible compress 1 litre and this later occupies 1/2 litre) because if we compress space result in less space and the rest is destroyed (created for expansion) and is against physic laws and mathematics (this would be the relation: 1 litre=2 litres=….=300=…..=100000).
Compress-expand space it’s the same that compress-expand energy and in the two cases need to be created or destroyed and this in energy has already the first law of thermodynamics.
Another solution: also if it would be expansion the new space (uncompressed) would move until Universe end instantaneously. The theory says that the space is created between the other, in this case the space need instantaneously to be created in all the points in the other axis until the other 2 Universes end and all in 3d (if not the x axis would be in axis y and z) by the Hubble’s law (in other case would create waves, … against Hubble’s law). This would be against physic laws and Hubble’s law (the 2 options).
Space can’t neither be created nor destroyed so only could comprise or transform, but by previous hypothesis can’t neither expand nor compress.
How Universe is all the space, these notes over space are applicable to the Universe.
How space not expand and Universe transforms matter in energy and this last end normally in heat the Universe is heating, against expansion theory that say what Universe is cooling.
Is clear that the heat is minimum in the Universe that is near empty and the heat is not homogeneous (more near stars).
Is more that a hypothesis since the Universe can’t expand and by that the energy (heat) can’t destroy and it’s according to physic laws.
The matter can’t neither create not destroy (any part is converted in energy by e=mc2), by that the matter which exists today always has existed, not how today, but probably from hydrogen and nuclear energy.
Same as Universe can exist or not and <span class=”ver” title=”If you are indicating possession, write its without an apostrophe, e.g.: the weather follows its own schedule (it’s stands for “it is” or “it has”).”>it’s sure that exists, the Universe only can be empty or not empty and we can prove that is not empty since the matter can’t be created.
Is more that a hypothesis and it’s according to physic laws.
The Universe is infinite in time and space and had hydrogen (today many is yet hydrogen).
The hydrogen is the most simple element and is by all part in Universe; this by gravity and nuclear energy made stars and into theirs creates the other elements of the periodic table. Maybe another elements in Universe start, but they are not necessary to arrive at the actual Universe.
Maybe that any soup or from energy, but I don’t believe so because the Universe probably begin cold and without energy (Universe don’t need energy in the origin) and by that the formation of hydrogen by Big Bang Theory is few probable. If hydrogen become from soup or from energy we need to explain from where become this, and the before, and the before, …
All matter and energy (heat created in stars) actual of Universe was hydrogen that is the initial origin of Universe. This is according to physic laws.
The Universe in origin is an infinite space not empty with hydrogen (maybe more elements, maybe energy, maybe particles, …), during many times with zero gravity (maybe gravity, but it’s not necessary) in the entire Universe, but slowly is created first hydrogen clouds and so any gravity.
Same as the Universe is infinite in time and space also the physical laws and the Universe obey this in all his history.
For many millions or billions of years (infinite) the hydrogen was probably homogeneous distributed and there were no gravity, slowly are created first hydrogen clouds and growing until first start burn (13700 million years ago). In same relation was growing the gravity.
The Universe is infinite in time, but even an infinite Universe any day burn first star.
How the Universe is homogeneous and obeys physical laws what we see in farthest stars is how the Universe with their first stars was in any point and it’s stable and we can’t see farther because in that past stars still don’t was stars that emit light. The age of that stars farthest and these oldest nearest coincide near 100% (13700 million years). The universe is very big (infinite), but all we see by time is very equal in all directions and by that all we see is very homogeneous and obeys physical laws.
Also we can suppose that our near Universe in the past was how we see the farthest and that farthest Universe actually is how our near Universe today.
Note that initial Universe only need to have hydrogen, first stars only have hydrogen probably and had not planets, … These first stars begin to make heavier elements and in this same stars or in other generations more percentage of heavier elements and more planets, comets,… Gradually has been incremented the gravity and Universe temperature.
In the future we can suppose increase of black holes and gravity, more proportion of heavy elements and less quantity and proportion of hydrogen.
How I say in introduction: there are theories and/or astronomers that say that in a homogeneous Universe can’t would create stars, but this not has in detail that the Universe has billions of years for that, also the Universe may be more or less homogeneous, but this not say that the atoms of hydrogen can move freely in any direction. This is near when a terrain or rampart is leveled, if we leave any time we can see that rain made channels, … and with that theory it’s not possible because the rain fall equal or near in all points and the terrain is leveled. (homogeneous and equal quantity of rain). In nature there is not 2 things equals.
The Universe grow in gravity (but lose a few of matter) since at begin probably the gravity in all points was zero and each time there are more quantity of black holes, galaxies, …
Is more that a hypothesis since it can to be demonstrated in an infinite Universe against the idea of expansion.
Also can say that the gravity grow each time more and that is in relation with the visual image of expansion and accelerated expansion of the Universe (speak in other places of this work that is impossible and against physic laws).
(This hypothesis is 1 possible solution over how we see Universe expansion and according to physic laws)
The geodesic or road by what travels the light is curved by the continuous increment of gravity (dark matter, …) in the Universe (not curved the space, but the way that travels the light). This gives an optic effect equivalent to expansion, red-shifts, time delay, … but without real expansion of the Universe. This curvature only is appreciable at very long distances (many millions of light years).
In initial resume I give fig 1 that show an equivalent in an open book .
The curved way can be in any direction (3d). The visual distance and real distance can be different, depending on more or less way curvature, but always at correct time in light years traveled by the light.
The light is curved in all places the same quantity, but the light at double distance is curved double time and by that seem at double speed according to Hubble’s law.
This hypothesis gives very good answer over visual Universe expansion (explain what we see) and also over visual accelerated expansion of the Universe, also is according to physics laws and against the other theories (expansion and Big bang) that are against all physic laws.
This hypothesis demonstrates that all this show (expansion, Big bang, …) only is an optic effect and only has relation with distance in any direction. An optic effect that show relation distance-size-red shift-… is correct and according to physic laws (how perspective and other optic effects).
We have a near example in galaxies created probably by incremented local gravity and these create black holes, but in relation to the Universe and with microscopical curvatures in very big distances of million light years.
It’s sure that visual expansion of Universe only can be a optic effect (size-distance) and need to be according to Hubble’s law.
(This not needs to create anything, strange theories, strange objects only known in theory, …)
(This is not tired light : the tired light don’t explain visual expansion, time delay and spectral redshift.)
According to physic laws the Hubble’s law only can be by an optic effect: if there is a Big Bang would be more (the physics say that in particles accelerators make little Big Bangs) and this is against Hubble’s law, in 3d only in a sphere centre may be true Hubble’s law, the stars at near light speed would be a time slowly, would be smaller, …
I believe is not necessary say more here.
The origin and formation of galaxies is near the same that stars, solar systems: and black holes by accumulation of material and gravity.
In any moment some (2 or more) stars approach and addition their masses and this joined gravity attract other stars, …
Galaxies, stars, solar systems all theirs are against expansion and Big bang theories.
Spiral galaxies probably are near solar systems joining their masses and near how to work a wheel.
Probably cost many more create a star that a galaxy, the galaxies like the stars move freely by the universe and can absorb and crash with other galaxies.
Expansion and Big bang theories treat galaxies and stars against this hypothesis and many times without good explanations and against physic laws. Stars and galaxies creation are problems for expansion and Big bang theories.
Time is infinite and how Universe can neither create nor destroy is also infinite in time. There is not a first minute and not will be a last minute.
The natural language of nature is mathematics and mathematics are infinite.
It’s more that a hypothesis and according to physic laws and mathematics.
Universe only can be finite or infinite in space and how space can neither be created nor destroy is stable in all the time.
The most easy and probably is an infinite Universe since if it’s finite there is logic asks how: What are there after the end? What happens at the end? And maybe incompatible with physics laws and also Universe and space are synonymous.
A finite Universe is against physic laws and mathematics because the space can’t end and by that the over Universe is also Universe.
Really Universe only can be infinite how I say here, is according to physic laws and mathematics, but next hypothesis I put a possible finite Universe (I know it’s impossible, but I put against any other presentation).
If Universe is not infinite must be finite and stable, stable how galaxies according to physical laws, without dark matter, Cosmic noise, expansion, …. But this has little logic and maybe difficult to be according to physical laws how what happens at Universe end …
This is near an anti-hypothesis, I’m against it. It’s against physic laws and mathematics, but less impossible that Universe expansion.
The dark matter observed at Universe end or the cosmic background radiation according to expansion and Big-Bang theories (farther that start farthest) are stars in formation, hot gas clouds, … that not emit light, but emit microwaves how happening with mass how Jupiter, ….
It’s more that a hypothesis, it is easy to proof (Jupiter by example that is hot and it’s not an star). This is according to physic laws and against the dark matter theory.
Against an expansive or contract Universe (expansion and Big-Bang theories) that can end in one point and can also end in one black hole all the Universe, an infinite Universe may end in many black holes and not in one big black hole.
Each galaxy is very probably that end in one black hole (today many galaxies have black hole at the center) and how there are galaxies that absorb to others there will be black holes that absorb to others and how galaxies today is very probably a Universe stable with many black holes.
Today exist also the theory of Big Rip, but speak of accelerated expansion and crash.
It’s more that a hypothesis and according to physic laws.
CMBR generate cosmic noise, but by attenaution this cannot to be the cause of interference in TV and electronic, so because their big power and by distance attenuation the origin must be very near. To say that cosmic noise comes from Big Bang is against physic laws (attenuation, extinction, …).
Some theories say that is generated by hydrogen y this is near, by all points of Universe.
It’s more that a hypothesis and according to physic laws.
Past stars die younger (observed in time delay of far supernovas) passing to supernovas make suppose that in the future they will be older. This may be relation with less gravity and/or less heavy elements in past Universe and by that in the future will be more gravity and more heavy elements into stars.
This hypothesis may to extend the time that Universe will have stars and extend each star generation in the future.
Actual theories say that Universe only can exist with a level of gravity force very near how is the real (weak force), this maybe for an expansive Universe, but for an infinite Universe is not needed and can exist at any power of gravity and also at any level the Universe result very similar to actual (stars bigger or lower, planets, live, ..).
In an infinite Universe a gravity hard or slow is not important because with a level or other the bodies would be bigger or lower and also stars would light at different density, near how can to be live in planets with different gravity (for the live probably is not necessary neither to have atmosphere).
This maybe another proof because for Big bang and expansion few gravity level admit, but for an infinite Universe there is not limits.
By other side, I consider gravity more hard that many say, it’s near the only one force with value in the Universe and difficult rockets to go out of atmosphere, also create stars, galaxies, …
Galaxies has been created from stars and gravity concentration, they move by space and concentrate matter and empty big empty spaces.
They are how immense brooms or brush that empty the Universe of matter that absorb by gravity concentrating matter that creates the same galaxy.
The process look easy at stars creation, but traveling about the Universe, it’s probably that the form of different galaxies have relation with the form of concentrate gravitationally and moving mode by space absorbing and empty surrounding space.
The space can’t neither expand nor compress like say hypotheses 3h,4h,5h and 6h and by that geodesic can’t exist and also can’t exist wormholes.
How space can’t curved is impossible the existence of geodesic and by that light is curved by the gravity. Very probably that all the other waves (electromagnetic, …) also are curved by gravity.
There are many waves not knows how they work how: the gravity, electromagnetic, magnet, … (and also the electricity) probably like the light other waves can be curved by gravity and it’s not necessary the existence of geodesic. Also, there are waves with strange qualities how short wave, very short wave,…. without many geodesics. For example, short waves any days can travel in the atmosphere at many distances and arrive to places without visual line and other days not or less.
That light is curved is demonstrated by black holes and from Relativity Theory (and by that according to physic laws) but geodesic need space curved (expansion and compression of space) that is against physic laws and I have proved above.
By the same cause are impossible the wormholes.
The truth is that light is curved by gravity (demonstrate) and against it there is not demonstrate the geodesic and how I say in other hypotheses the space can’t be compress.
In same form that a solar system is stable or maybe stable and a planet with a moon, in same form maybe stabe a black hole, all is relation of forces. By that is probably solar system with black hole stable, black hole only stable, galaxies with black hole (1 o more) stable, and not necessary that the black hole absorb all the galaxy.
, ,magic, creation, creationism, belief, believer, sect, gods
Author:Luis Biarge Baldellou
Copyright ©2010 Luis Biarge Baldellou – You can copy all or part of this work giving this web page direction.