| Home. | Universe Galaxies And Stars Archives. | 
Universe Galaxies Stars logo.
     | Universe | Big Bang | Galaxies | Stars | Solar System | Planets | Hubble Telescope | NASA | Search Engine |

Universe constantly expands.


Ten Years Since The Revolution at Amazon.

SAS Black Ops at Amazon.
Amazon Kindle EBook Reader: Click For More Information.

Universe.
Universe expanding.

In this chapter, I wish to propose a theory on Galaxies and stars, that some might consider highly outrageous. And the reasons why I wish to do this, is to meet specific criteria on evolution, other theories have neglected in the past.

In some way, it seems ridiculous to believe all Galaxies were created the same, all stars followed an identical pattern, yet indigenous life around those said Galaxies and stars is noticeable by its absence.

Do we really believe, with so many known Galaxies and stars located in the universe, we are the only life forms to inhabit such a vast expanse of space. I think not.

But if that's the case, and other life does tenant our universe in abundance, we might ask ourselves at this point, why we don't detect that life with large radio Telescopes using a Doppler effect: The change in pitch of frequency from a source to an observer.

We stipulated, in our chapter on Time we could show a plausible mechanism to describe the reason why this event doesn't take place, ragardless of how often we try and achieve it.

What I actually proposed, rather rebelliously in my opinion, was a brand new, totally unique theory, that displays stars in our night sky as exertion points of force: A point between two stars where the strongest point of force is located, and moves light two directions simultaneous, so two observers around two stars witness the same event together - and thus neither could determine a different time frame from any other. This theory actually means, it should be possible from here on Earth to show planetary movement, and motion around other stellar mass, providing we use the new theoretical observation to do so.

The reason why I believe we do not currently detect other planetary motion, is because we only ever witness a point of force, with no body of mass displayed, as any body of mass needs to contain solid, identifiable matter.

Therefore, any star we measure, must already have its sums calculated. In other words, when we currently attempt to measure planetary motion in another solar system, all we witness is an image rather than a body of mass.

If I momentaruly digress, and demonstrate a simply analogy with numbers, rather than stellar material, it might help. Imagine adding two numbers, say two plus two, then the point we measure the Doppler at would-be the totalled four.

But with this theory, it would also be possible to show, that if two stars produce an exertion of force, between both of them, it would actually create a pin-prick of light, what we determine as a star, and so this point would total zero.

And these we currently see receding according to science, as the universe constantly expands. The scientific term for this expanision is known as The Hubble Constant.

However, for this new theoretical observation, which shows a change in the emission and transmission point of light, we should remember, we wouldn't see a universal expansion, because of the principle of equidistance: All objects retain an equal distance from each other all the time, even during regression.

That means, even if universal matter did expand within a universal framework, the relative distance between all bodies, stars, would be constant to all other bodies.

And if that is the case, then for us, we have to conclude, that only an exertion of force, pin-pricks of light (stars) can vacate the position they initially inhabited. They move more distantly from us as we on Earth gradually lose our gravitational influence.

We've insisted, this could easily be proven to be right or wrong with a simple telescope measurement: The rise and fall of starlight on a secondary equation to a Doppler Starlight would briefly rise during a solar eclipse in another solar system, and then fall back to its original position once the eclipse transpires.

As a distant eclipse occurs, the volume of mass increases, and thus light, redetermines its position inconjunction with its reciprocal body of mass.

And this fundamental observation will become crucial in any theory we postulate, because it explains why we can see other Galaxies - and other stars, but not the Planets which must naturally orbit them.

But moreover than that, it allows us to talk a touch more openly about reinventing the entire structure and matrix's of the star itself.

But first we'll investigate the principle of galaxies.

We have seen many times on television, documentaries showing us creation from the Big Bang singularity, the birth of our entire universe. One huge bang, and it comes racing toward us on the screen. Galaxies upon galaxies, come spewing away from a central point already complete!

But how accurate is this analogy?

I think we first have to understand, that any detonation is a fairly precise event, and Galaxies holding together as they explode is limited to say the least. And a point that's often neglected in these programmes is, what holds exploding matter together?

On reflection, it appears self-defeating, when a closer scrutiny is undertaken, and the very building blocks that go to make-up its fabric are analysed. And we may even be forgiven for asking, if this galactic event did happen, as described by both science and television, then what produced all universal gravityl. But perhaps, more importantly for this chapter, what produced a gravitational force to hold Galaxies in such precise formations?

The chances are, we would be disappointed. Once again they are quick-fix solutions to very intriguing problems. We find ourselves without any real solutions, but people, usually Cosmologists are continuing with their relentless push forwards, undeterred by that which is fundamental in the very basic mechanics of construction.

When we begin to talk openly about galaxies, we are not merely discussing a cosmic event of some insignificance; we are talking about an entire neighbourhood of universal activity. And although we might like to think of ourselves as alone, safe from predatory species, or marauding hoards, it might not be the case.

As each Galaxy contains literally millions of stars, there could be any multitude of life among them, with any multitude of ambitions. We would all hope them friendly, and extend our warmest wishes to them, but unfortuneately life is not always how we would like it to be.

If we assume, a galaxy, like our planet, with its different landmasses, continents and countries we see a series of problematic events which could arise. From our own example, we know most of the world tries admirably to retain a peaceful co-existance, but there are times in its history where conflicts of interest arise. This inevitably leads to wars, carnage, bloodshed and hostility.

Usually these events rollercoaster beyond normal control. But we can, and often do, prepare for them.

However on galactic terms we might ask what preparation has been undertaken for planet Earth to protect its people in the long term? And if we neglect even the basic theory of other existence then we have problems. We are indeed defenceless. That is why it is essential to undertake a reworking of these simple theories science continues to support.

When we look more closely at a Big Bang singularity, that point in space time, where spacetime curvature becomes infinite, we see no original system to introduce gravity within its matrix. This we said would cause a constant distancing from each other of all elementary particles. There simply would be no clumping together to form stars, let alone Planets around them. And If this occurs, and a constant principle of drift, that point where circumstances become beyond our control, or more importantly, beyond the control of the universe, happens, I see no logical reason for a universe to formulate at all.

If we cannot include that initial centre of gravity, with a cohesive and solid structure, we witness a universe that has no logical law of determination. It would be like a country without government, a society without laws or a ship without a captain. We would endorse a system of anarchy, chaos and confusion.

And so, we have to have universal order for the universe to exist!

It becomes essential in organisation. If we refer to our own theory momentarily, where we exchanged a Big Bang singularity for a fusion/infusion policy: To liquify by heat energy and syphon from it mass, so energy races away through a defined diamond nothingness, but simultaneously allows all universal mass to centralize, we see how we can stabilize universal gravity in a profound structure of consolidation. What we termed an engine to drive the universe.

We might even call it a system of order, where all universal laws obey a central command structure. We allowed a principle of government - and showed with one easy explanation, how a universal theorem just drifting aimlessly, losing its kernel of gravity, can affordably be reshaped into a precise system of structured management. It was initially difficult and took a lot of years to formulate, but eventually with a rigorous and diligent application, we eventually produced a substantial proportion of universal gravity, enough to govern an entire universe.

We achieved a very difficult task, and ventured forth from there, rather than choosing a simple jump off point. And when we allowed that prestigious event to happen, we showed how time would be formulated. We allowed it to compose itself, and that is important, because although we are calling it simply here time, what we actually produced was gravity.

We condensed all particle matter into a single region, that became infinitely dense. This point, once composed, contained all universal weight, but no energy. Therefore as it had to unwind with no other option, it gradually capitulated to those heavy neutrons. But as the first of those are released, and turn into supernova 2, our universe would have continued to produce a higher exertion of gravity.

This becomes absolutely fundamental, in drawing a newly formed Galaxy back on itself until it collapses, while at the same time, spinning it from what might be termed a loose configuration of particle dust, into a more solid structure.

It would indeed produce that desire for clumping together of particle physics. This would also ensure that any newly emerged galaxy, cannot just drift apart and lose its gravitational influence on indigenous regions within it (stars).

But with this process, as we previously mentioned, all new universal matter will have to constantly collapse back on itself, constantly allowing its own productive weight to be continuously reassessed. This process for us is the very basis of life emerging throughout the constellations.

In some small way, it allows us the luxury of formulating a globular mass, to produce galaxies, stars and Planets inside the core of the nebula. For as the process gets under way, and a universe is born, it will recognise undulation produced by weight distribution.

And when the central point lightens, universal matter should move more distantly from its central hub, yet as the central hub itself turns at a higher ratio, becomes heavier, a new Galaxy should collapse back, dragging with it any stellar material along the way.

If those particles are regionalised within a galaxy, there is no theoretical reason why at that time, they shouldn't produce hot spots, or what we might now term stars.

Yet it is crucial we remember at this point, the sheer volume and density of a central point in universal proportions. The region in itself, would be so infinitely dense, that it would literally begin to create a vortices. And if this actually happens, as newly formed Galaxies gradually distance themselves from a central point, what we would produce is large stellar activity.

These might be viewed as either huge illuminated stars like our own, only thousands, if not millions of times brighter, or they may take on the identity of a new type of star which we will be the first to describe. These new stars, we will call Black stars: A point in space so infinitely dense no light can escape from them at all, and no exertion of force can be created as its position has created such a super strong point, that no determination can be created, due to such a high volume of mass.

That leads us to believe, that if a Galaxy is capable of constantly being able to collapse back on itself, a natural association must follow with stars themselves.

At this juncture, we can talk openly about Galaxies and stars, running with a gravitational loop analogy. A birth, death, and rebirth cycle. Which basically means, as a Galaxy is born, rides undulating waves away, but frequently collapses back on itself, within its own spiralling motion, stellar activity must produce the very same loop analogy. Within a newly formed galaxy, areas are produced of hot vortices. These hot regions in the atomic matrix of a newly formed galaxy, will swallow particle matter, forcing the central structure to become overweight. As that particle matter is sucked within those areas, the atomic weight increases - and the density becomes heavier.

This heavy pressure constantly builds, until it has one logical option left open to it, it fuses. An ubiquitous pressure increases, an implosion takes place, fusion is generated - and the whole lot goes off like an atomic bomb. And only once this explosion takes place, will it shower an individual region, of an individual galaxy, in primordial gases, and leave at its heart, a hot matterless vortex twisting down, as a fused solar vortex.

Are we therefore saying, stars are solar vortexes?

We most certainly are. And we say that for a good reason. The reason why we need to convert a normal star, into a hot, burning vortex, is to produce Planets within its own solar matrix. We need to achieve this monumental task for specific reasons.

We said, at the outset of this book, we wished to show a plausible route to allow and permit UFOs to get here. We also said, under Einsteinian physics, that event not possible, because science perceives light as a constant in a vacuum. We rewrote special relativity to show that theory wrong.

But what we have to accept, even with a rewrite of special relativity, is, it's not enough on its own to show the validity of what observers see to be accurate. Obviously, if these journeys are made to our world by extra-terrestrial beings, the said extraterrestrials must originate from some location in our universe, probably our own galaxy. It would seem inappropriate for extra-terrestrial life to travel from one Galaxy to the next. But not as outrageous as it might first seem.

However, we do have to be realistic about the journey, and so, perhaps we should assume, although we are very interesting as a species, I don't particularly think we are interesting enough to warrant galactic travel. Although I might be. But whether we base our assumption on other life forms visiting us from within our own galaxy, or from more distant regions of the universe, we have to first assume they do actually exist.

And to do that, we must produce (i), a productive mechanism to show why we do not detect their planet, and (ii) show how we can prove there is Planets actually there at all, even though we do not detect them.

Perhaps we should quickly start, with the last piece first. We said awhile ago, the reason we don't register other Planets is because of how we interpret stars. What we actually suggested was, we do not see the star, but see a point of force. And That would mean, if they on their world looked towards the heavens, they would see the same star as us, and naturally if they used a Doppler detectton system to try and detect us, they would find the evidence just as inconclusive.

This is not as strange as it might sound. If we remember light travels as waves, and visible light is determined by the distance of the peaks and valleys within it, we can assume that point of force can actually occur as we predict with this new theory. If we then allow light to move two directions simultaneous, we can understand that a process has been initiated to prevent us from detecting each others' presence. At that time, we therefore include our secondary equation, the ability to detect them, or them us, by assuming a relocation of starlight takes place.

When the event, the rise and fall of starlight has been achieved, we can show a new planet has been found in another solar system. But perhaps more importantly, show Planets emerged in every Solar System going. This then becomes vital in showing how a production of stella activity can enable solar systems to produce temperature regulated bodies: (Stars).

For if we assume, two bodies in action with each other formulate a structured policy, what we could call a marriage of convenience, we might have to propose a theory where they rotate as equal, opposites of each other. What we term mirrored ellipses: To have two solar systems that rotate in equal proportion to one another in a clockwise and anti-clockwise direction to create Hydrogen fission.

If this then happened, it would create a pressure factor on alternative bodies, (other stars) but simultaneously, produce the very atomic reaction a star needs to produce fluctuating temperatures within its own solar system. But before that gets under way, lets first imagine what a new Solar System looks like, as it comes it to being.

We said the initial fusion principle would have resembled a nuclear bomb exploding, and we will not change our mind on that, because to create any system of expansion we need the cause and effect that has become so interlocked within this thesis doctrine. And so, we allow a new star to be born.

In one large, ubiquitous implosion, followed almost instantly by an explosion, the fusion reaction throws out all the particle matter it might have swallowed over hundreds of millions of years, and like a very violent volcano, atom debris showers a region within close proximity to the main stellar core.

Once material is dispensed, the core itself quickly becomes a massless furnace, so can have only one logical option, it collapses back on itself. As a surrounding Galaxy continues to spiral beyond all natural control, a point of hot, fused space is dragged back. And in conjunction with other stars, this massless vortex also becomes squeezed. And as there is no longer any matter to hold it stable, it will instinctively try to reposition itself in space and time.

From there, the newly forming star condenses still further, allowing what particles still remain within it to burn with an atomic chain reaction. But this process can only last a short time, before more matter is need to continue the process.

For an easier recognition, you might like to view it like a fire, as one log burns away, you need to add another if the fire is to continuously burn. And if our newly created star pursues the same basic design, then as the initial atomic cycle recedes, and leaves the new star without any fusion material, it will look towards other avenues to continue its life cycle. At this point, there is only one place it might now reclaim matter, the debris it showered space with as it burst into life.

In a cannibalistic attempt at devouring itself the star starts to drag matter back in. Yet the only way this may happen, is if the star - redefined by us as a stellar solar vortex loses its temperature. As the initial hot, fused entity gradually loses its heat, gravitational influence is also lost, and all the newly formed matter drifts slowly towards the star's core.

But we should remember, an initially formed hot body of massless property will not have lost the will to live, merely it will be diminished to such an extent, that all contributory matter deposited by the said body may begin to return to its point of source.

As a hot vortex cools, gravitational influence permits matter to move instinctively towards it. As the first particles of matter reach the final destination, it commences a slow fusion ignition: Atomic reaction occurs - and Solar System gravity is quickly returned.

And its this process which brings about a high, elementary level of rotation, and once again the basic system of spin is reintroduced. Once that happens, we could imagine, with an early eruption of stellar material, matter from a central iron core would have literally showered the emerging Solar System to such an extent, that although an initial reaction once again gets under way, contributory matter gases still blankets the ambient area as far out as the peripheral walls. And perhaps father beyond that, deeper towards space.

And so, we have to ask, have we reinvented the Star?

And say, we most certainly have. What we actually did was turn a theory of stellar, globular fusion into a burning vortex: What we might like to term, a fused black hole, for easier identification.

The reason why we did this, was basically to create a solid, evolutionary solar system: A Solar System built by design rather than luck or chance. And we could facilitate explanatory matters still further, by describing its rudimentary mechanics as an entity that purveys a style which: Heats up, cools down, heats up, cools down, continuously until the Solar System has nothing left to burn - and simply dies.

This constant repetitive process, gives it an ability to control all gravity, and ensure we do not just clump together large particle matter within the solar system, yet still leave an ambit for a quantum principle in moulding planetary evolution.

We do that with a simple carbonisation principle of quantum mechanics: Small particles controlled through a large gravitational influence. But we will decipher that in finer detail in our next chapter, planetary evolution. For now I wish to continue with the standardisation of solar systems and promote the vortecies theory still further.

Some people might argue at this juncture, that we can see our star not a vortex, because it sits high in the sky, not too often in the UK, but it is there, apparent for all to see. So let me just emphasize, seeing is not always believing.

We have ran a quote through this book so far, and will not forsake it now. The quote, by George Bernard Shaw, suggested we have 'lost the power of wisdom through knowledge', and as I said before, and to reiterate, I am firmly of the same opinion.

To understand this more, we will indulge a touch of thought recognition. Imagine walking through the desert, you are dying of thirst, and into sight comes an oasis. You rush forwards desperately looking to bathe in the cool desert water, lie under a palm and wait your rescue. But as you rush headlong forwards, falling and rolling through the sand, the image evaporates. And all that lies ahead of you is more harsh, unforgiving sand. A cruel trick? Nature's revenge? I doubt it. Most would say it was only a mirage, and at that point be quite right. But what caused it?

A mirage is created when you get a combination of hot and cold gases meet. Hot gas rises faster than cold gas, and an illusion is created. Back to the star. Imagine now, a hot burning vortex pulling down on cold space; should we not assume, like the cruel desert trick, this would cause the centre of the vortex to rise, to create a large dome corona, and simply fool us into believing it a globular ball of gas!

The reason behind this theory is a simple one; we either look to a way where our Solar System creates its planets, or rely more safely on a scientific evaluation: "We were in the right place at the right time!" To me that does not sound very scientific, and besides, it's not as simple as that. Because we do not detect Planets with a Doppler measurement around other stars, it doesn't mean we were in the right place at the right time, what you might term lucky. It means we got lucky at least nine times.

And I say nine, because there is a slight possibility that a tenth planet, Planet X actually exists on the periphery of our solar system. But the reason why we have to insist, we in our Solar System would have became lucky nine times, is explained by the fact nine known Planets register in our solar system.

And it makes no difference whether these bodies contain life or not. The fact is, if a large body of mass orbits within a solar system, its gravitational influence on the star produces a Doppler signal, which naturally should be detectable to anyone who tries to measure the event with a large radio telescope.

The effect measured is the change if frequency, from a source to an observer, what some term simply: A wobble. You could think of it like a car coming towards you its horn blasting, but as the car approaches, and then passes you by, we hear a distinct difference in the pitch. This is known as a Doppler effect - and it works just as well with light as sound.

Now, as science has scanned the heavens for dozens of years, and found nothing of any real value to show other bodies of mass around other stars, except for a few small signals, about eleven in all, from the millions of stars observed, we must indeed conclude ourselves lucky.

To say we have as many identifiable Planets in our solar system, as the rest of the universe put together, seems strange. Some might even say perverse. Especially when we look at the very short orbits of these other alleged Planets in distant solar systems.

But the anomaly is, some of these so called distant Planets have an orbit of 4 days! I heard one scientist say "It's probably a large gas giant." Well, Jupiter in our Solar System is a large gas giant, and Jupiter's orbit takes a little over 11 years to make a complete cycle of the Sun. Planets do not orbit stars in 4 days, in fact, nothing would be able to orbit a star in four days, not even Flash Gordon's rocket.

For any object in motion, the volume of mass, a body measured by its resistance to acceleration would become so great, on that velocity it would probably collapse back into a star if it even attempted such a speed. So what might that signal be?

The chances are, the star is offering a steady and stable gas release from inside itself.

And if I'm are right about the theory, then those other solar systems currently being monitored at the moment, do not hold the greatest hope of other life, but possibly the worst hope. If we are right about moving light two directions simultaneous, from a centrally, determined point of force, emitting from between both bodies of mass: (stars), then what we should search for is a stable star not that dissimilar from our own, and look to measure the rise and fall of starlight, rather than the prefered, Doppler wobble.

If as we said, stars, like Galaxies all formed from a single universal blueprint, then Planets should have replicated in the same productive fashion. And that means a paradox enters the equation: The paradox being, a mature planet should under this theory be secreted by its own anonymity. It might sound an irony, that the only way we might actually find extraterrestrial life, could be to look for something that is not actually there.

But who knows, maybe that is what George Bernard Shaw actually meant wisdom is all about, the ability to believe without observation, to make a prediction and put it to the test. But to find that out, all we can do is wait for science to discover what mankind was given for nothing, the ability to believe in what he knows, rather than what he sees!

Below is a list of chapters for the Metaphysics Anthology. The book itself is designed as abit of fun! One man thinking out loud. You should not see it as science, merely enjoy the imagination of the human mind in full swing.



  Go To Print Article  



Universe - Galaxies and Stars: Links and Contacts

the web this site
 | GNU License | Contact | Copyright | WebMaster | Terms | Disclaimer | Top Of Page. |