Cosmological Queries

[John Paul]

1) Does science (physics, quantum or astro-) have a concise description of the supernova that started our solar system? Or is it just a general theory?

2) Does science have a concise description of how and why we are made up of exploded stars? I only know this as a general proposition, tied up with the evolutionary story of the Big Bang.

3) What was the systemic state before the supernova occurred that created our current solar system? Was that star similar to our current sun, with its own planets? Is there a term for this?

4) Is there a term for the timespan, process or evolutionary development of the solar system leading right up to the death and explosion of the sun? In other words, the final billion or final several hundred million years of its life? I know roughly that the death of the sun goes through stages, involving transitions into different forms like a red dwarf or white dwarf (I don't remember/never knew what they're called).

5) After the Big Bang, after the universe exploded outward and expanded into galaxies and solar systems, is there a term for one such galaxy or solar system as it rests in some sort of embryonic state? In other words, the state before it is formed by expansions and explosions?

6) Are there stages of the expansion of the universe following the Big Bang, with names perhaps, and corresponding blocks of time? Or is it just presented to us as one Event, one explosion followed by one great Expansion? If so, is there a term for that?

[Zyxzevn]

The Big Bang theory is not supported by the Electric Universe.
While it could be combined with the EU, the EU has alternative explanations for the phenomena that are
related to the Big Bang theory.

1&2. Early supernovas are necessary in the Big Bang theory to explain why we have heavy elements.
The big bang assumes that we had hydrogen first, which came from pure energy (which came from nowhere).
By gravity this is compressed and forms the first stars made of hydrogen.
This produces helium and other light elements.
Yet this does not produce any heavy elements, so the BB theorists invented the early supernovas, that
due to their strong energy might have created the heavy elements.

Yet in reality, we do not see many supernova at the distance related to that time.
So in reality this theory is nonsense. But it in mainstream science it is OK.

In the EU the heavy elements might come from strong electrical currents, which produce the energy
required to form the heavy elements. These currents can be found in any galaxy. (I think gives a galaxy
its spiral shape).

In some of Halton Arp's theories, the quasars turn into galaxies. And these quasars are in some kind of
different state of matter, causing enormous redshifts. These different states of matter might cause
heavy elements to form.

3. In the EU the solar system was not created by supernova-dust, mixed with hydrogen. The hydrogen comes
together due to the strong currents in the galaxy. This together with gravity causes the formation of stars.
After stars have burned for a very long time, the remains become solid. These again can form planets.
So in the EU earth might be the remains of a very old star.

And Saturn might have been a star that burned very recent. The "burning" of a star is not just caused by gravity,
but also by the electrical currents of the galaxy. And by the electrical phenomena caused by the nuclear fusion.

If we look at galaxies, we can see that the oldest stars are on the outside of galaxies.
This is near where our planet is. So our planet could indeed be the remains of a very old star.

4. In the EU there is no need for supernova, so we think that these happen as often as we see them in
our telescopes. It is likely that the sun will just keep burning normally until it slowly becomes a planet too.

5. The Big bang is not an explosion. It used to be, but that turned out to be impossible. Now the modern theory says it is inflation, not an explosion, and is based on a mathematical error that Einstein made.
(that is what he called it himself).

In the EU the general idea is that there is no inflation or expansion of the universe. The redshift, which
most of this idea is based on, is light losing energy instead. This is caused by the cold sparse interstellar plasma,
that interacts with the light. It redshifts the light, as we can see in the laboratory.

The EU makes no clear predictions about when or how the universe was formed. The general idea of age is
that the universe is more than 100 times older than predicted by the Big Bang, by a gradual process.
It is known that empty space can give rise to particles, which can again form hydrogen.
And this might slowly form structures again.

I am sorry, not so many explosions in the Electrical Universe.
Instead we have spectacular electrical phenomena, which you can even see today.

6. The Big bang has all kinds of stages, all of which we can NOT see in our telescopes or laboratories.
The EU is based on continuous processes, all of which we do see in our telescopes and laboratories.

[willendure]

By gravity this is compressed and forms the first stars made of hydrogen.
This produces helium and other light elements.

One problem that the big bang model fails to address satisfactorily is how did those first hydrogen stars manage to form under gravity alone?

There is a lot of gravitational potential energy that needs to be dissapated as the material collapses under gravity to form a star, otherwise it will just heat up and the internal pressure will prevent it from collapsing. With larger dust grains, or heavier metal elements present it is just about conceivable that all this energy could radiate away in a sufficiently short time with respect to the estimated age of the universe that gravitational collapse is a viable hypothesis. With pure hydrogen, it is hard to see how such a collapse to form a star could complete quickly enough.

Just like mathematical induction - the step part of the hypothesis that new stars form from the remnants of old might seem possible - but if the initial condition of a star formed from pure hydrogen cannot be met to jump-start the whole thing, it rather spoils the big bang model.

[Michael Mozina]

By gravity this is compressed and forms the first stars made of hydrogen.
This produces helium and other light elements.

One problem that the big bang model fails to address satisfactorily is how did those first hydrogen stars manage to form under gravity alone?

There is a lot of gravitational potential energy that needs to be dissapated as the material collapses under gravity to form a star, otherwise it will just heat up and the internal pressure will prevent it from collapsing. With larger dust grains, or heavier metal elements present it is just about conceivable that all this energy could radiate away in a sufficiently short time with respect to the estimated age of the universe that gravitational collapse is a viable hypothesis. With pure hydrogen, it is hard to see how such a collapse to form a star could complete quickly enough.

Just like mathematical induction - the step part of the hypothesis that new stars form from the remnants of old might seem possible - but if the initial condition of a star formed from pure hydrogen cannot be met to jump-start the whole thing, it rather spoils the big bang model.

Not only does the mainstream have a huge problem explaining how the first stars would become so massive before "igniting" and thereby driving away other inbound particles, they also have a huge problem explaining quasars in the early universe. There simply wasn't enough time for such supermassive objects to form in such a relatively short period of time.

The supposedly 'early' universe is pretty much exactly like the local galaxy cluster in terms of massive central cores, etc.

The mental gymnastics that go into trying to hold LCDM theory together is simply absurd. There are *so* many contradictions and problems, and yet they simply ignore them all.

The "Cold dark matter" part of LCDM is the only really "lab testable" claim in LCDM theory, and it's been a complete bust in *every single* test run to date. They simply couldn't have performed any worse in terms of the uselessness of their so called "predictions" related to cold dark matter.

100 years from now astronomers will look back at these years and be simply amazed that supposedly "scientifically advanced" societies would believe in all that supernatural invisible sky hocus-pocus.

[Eaol]

(1) I think the (mainstream) general view doesn't require a specific supernova, just the accumulation of material that supposedly was released in supernovae over vast swathes of time. It's a theory of course, but most things are.

(2) The general view is that heavier elements ("metals" to astronomers) than H and He (and maybe Li? don't recall) were not present after the Big Bang until Population III stars (stars without metal) formed those elements through nuclear fusion. Later, the story goes, came the Population II (metal-poor) and Population III (metal-rich - including the Sun) stars. So the idea is that those elements came from fusion, and that stars are where fusion takes place naturally, meaning the only place most of our constituent parts could've come from is from the remains of stars long gone.

FYI, I don't think the Electric Universe is opposed to nuclear fusion occurring in stars, rather it'd be occurring more or less near the photosphere, if I recall correctly.

(3) Again, I don't think anyone proposes a specific supernova. I don't know if there'd be a term for that, and it'd probably be hard to guess specifics on that hypothetical star(s).

(4) Stellar evolution, which is more of a thing in the standard model than in the EU (at least, it's less linear in the EU views I'm familiar with, based more on external environment). In the standard model, roughly, the Sun is supposed to become a red giant and then slough off its outer layers and a white dwarf should remain. In the EU, I'm not sure anything necessarily has to happen, at least not in the same manner the standard model would have it.

(5) I guess the terms you're looking for are "protoplanetary disk" for solar systems in the standard view, "quasars" for galaxies in some EU views, etc. But those aren't supposed to explode in either case, the only explosions are the "Big Bang" and supernovae, really.

(6) There are various views on what might happen (in the Big Bang universe) as the Universe continues expanding, including a "Big Crunch", in which the expansion slows and material collapses back through gravity; a "Big Freeze", in which the expansion continues and the average temp. of the Universe decreases to absolute zero; a "Big Bounce" in which the Universe's expansion slows, it shrinks down, and then rebounds and expands again in cycles; and a "Big Rip" in which the expansion continues until the Universe and all the matter within is torn apart. Or something like that.

In seriousness, though, the Wiki page would be helpful for a standard explanation and description of various stages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronolog ... e_universe

As far as the EU, I'm not sure I've seen any particular chronology with specific ages and such spelled out anywhere, presumably because in the EU view the Universe isn't expanding to begin with and galaxies and their contents form in a somewhat different way, making it hard to say much about the past.