It seems to be that galaxies can not be formed in about 1 billion years
needed by traditional big bang cosmology. According to the cosmology that I
am making Galxies are much older than hence thought. The whole galaxy
universe has been huge hydrogen cloud and galaxies are formed in the similar
way with stars. When galaxies are contracted from the cloud in the galaxy
there is continious drift of gas and dust towards the center of the galaxy.
That can be seen in the MIlky way, that is so relatively young. When gas
drifts to the center, the center of galaxy is formed stasburst galaxy. (Star
formatioon is because clouds collide) That expains the soup distribution of
galaxies in the sky. Whwn nucleus of the galaxy becomes dense enough it
collapses and forms very compact object. This forms drift of dust to the
center so small active galaxy is born. In Seyfert galaxies there is torus
because of the disk nature of the spiral galaxy. During billion years nucleus
grows and pressure gradient gets more dust flowing to the center , so ther is
formed continuation in the size of the activity. In the end compact nucleus
has grown huge and quasar is born, so active galaxies are much older ttan the
mIlky Way and activity of our galaxy begins aometimes in the future. That
exlains nicely practcally all the problems of our galaxy system. However the
thory predicts that it is possible observe nebulas that are not formed from
200 billion stars but we can find a small speckle on the telescope that
consists 200 billion galaxies. We have found another universe !
A few months ago I posted my planet birth-theory. According
to that planets and the sun are born in different places and dif-
ferent time. The planetary system is born as a whole and the sun
has then captured the planetary system.
Basically my theory is valid because all the facts of the planetary s
ystem are for it. However many details remain open and need explanation.
For instance How planets are actually formed. It seems that planets can be
formed in the univese by many ways,and from them we must choose the one
that the earth and our planetary system is formed. We must be able also
to reject false thories that are impossible.
There are two basic theories that explain well the birth of the
planets . First when the stars are born we know from the virial theorem
that the gas cloud from which the stars are condensen must be much
bigeer than one star so many stars are born in the same time. That
explains why binary stars are so common. But in the same time it is
probable that there are formed minor size bodies i.e. planets.
Second theory is the one that planets are born in the novae
explotion that seems more probable because it explains also the birth
of the earth kind of planets.
Now we know how planets are formed and that they are captured
by the sun.
I have posted information on this subject before so I dont
go into all the details now.Next I explain the spin orbit interaction and its
effect on the orbits of the planets. We know that when the planets have reache
d the sun the sun has rotated in opposite direction than the planets.
That means that the sun's angular momentum has decelerated the velocity
of the planets the planets have come nearer the sun.So because of that
gravitational friction sun's rotation has become in the same direction than th
e planets. So planets velocity towards the sun has lowered.But when the
angular momentum of the sun has become bigger than that of the earth
the earth gets more velocity and and so it is orbiting more far away
from the sun. That is exactly what is happening when we increase seconds
to the year. Finally we see that during 5 billion years the orbits of the
planets have changed much.
Oorts cloud does´not exist
: > About a year ago I posted my theory about the birth of the planets.
: > It says that the whole planetary system has been born in the outburst of
: >the giant star and minor and bigger planetary bodies are born in this
outburst.
: > The sun has then captured the whole planetary system including the
: >comets and asteroids. The comets that we see today (about 900) are left rota-
: >ting the earth. The large majority of the comets have collided to the planets
: >and especially the sun. According to my theory the number of the comets
: >has dramatically diminished during the four billion years the planets have
: >rotated the sun.
: > If there would be the huge reservoir of comets in the near space
: >we should see comets more oftenly than we see them today. Als the diminishing
: >rate of comets hints to the same direction. So Oorts cloud is nothing but
: >fiction.
: > Pertti Koivisto
ut my ideas shortly yet.The density of the celestial body are 1. Chemical composition of the body
2. gravitation
3. possible radiative core
Conclusions : 1. The sun is 7% denser than Jupiter
2. If the sun wouldn't have radiative core its density
would be bigger
3. Gravitation alone cann't explain why the sun is
denser than Jupiter
conclusions 1. The chemical composition of the Jupiter differs
from the sun so that Jupiter has more hydrogen than
the sun vis a vis helium
2. The galileos results that Jupiter has more hydrogen
than hence thought seem to be right.
Comet crash
I make a question to Nasa. How long did the vestiges of the comet
Shoe-Maker-Levy were visible on the surface of the planet JUpiter.in
the pictures of the spcecraft Galileo.
How long they could be seen with large telescopes.
Rotation of the sun , planets and moons
According to the capture theory the sun has captured the whole planetary system and now planets rotate around the sun. But why the sun rotates so slowly. Every rotation takes 24 days. Why Jupiter rotates very fast abour 9 hours and Mars and earth about 24 hours. Why Venus and Mercury rotate about 260 days and 52 days. Why all giant planets rotate so fast ? Whyt they rotate in the same direction (exceptions Venu and Uranus. The rotation velocity has its origin in the birth of the planets in the novae of the giant star system. The angular momentum around the sun is explained by the direction of th capture and the inner rotations with exceptions in the rotation of the giant star system that palnets are originated. The sun has originally rotated vice verse but Jupiters angularmomentum has been receded tu the sun by gravitational shaft of the sytem. When Jupiter rotates aroun the sun it gets the sun rotate more quickly by the rotation around the sun and its direction and by gravitational "shaft" of the Jupiter towars the sun. The angular momentum of the sun is originated from Jupiter.
Rotation of the planets
In the solar system there are nine planets. Only the earth
has life. When we think about human beings on this planet it is important
to find out that other 8 planets especially the biggest, Jupiter ,and
the moon have important task: They protect us from asteroids and comets
that otherwise would collide on earth and destroy us.
There are however some pecualirities in the rotation of
the planets. Venus and mercury rotate at least nearly synchronously
but mars and the earth are rotating quite fast,why so. According to
my theory of the birth of the planets there are two major factors that
affect on the spinning of the planets. First there are tidal forces
that try to decelerate the rotation.Mercury and Venus are quite near
the sun and venus has considerably big size so tidal forces have got
them to rotate slowly. Mars is so far-away from the sun that tidal
forces have not been able to decelerate its spinning.
As to the earth the Moon has vital importance to us
it recedes its orbital angular momentum to the earth and annuls the
tidal forces. So witout the moon the earth would rotate very slowly
and we shouldn't have day and night and life would be impossible.
According to my theory of the planetary birth the
sun has captured the whole planetary system so the angular momentum
of the sun derives its origin from the planets. That we see in the
fact that Jupiter is orbiting the equator of the sun's rotation axis.
According to my theory the rotation of the sun is accelerating.
I ask : Are there observations that could support my theory ?
Birth of the planets and spin orbit interaction
A few months ago I posted my planet birth-theory. According
to that planets and the sun are born in different places and dif-
ferent time. The planetary system is born as a whole and the sun
has then captured the planetary system.
Basically my theory is valid because all the facts of the planetary s
ystem are for it. However many details remain open and need explanation.
For instance How planets are actually formed. It seems that planets can be
formed in the univese by many ways,and from them we must choose the one
that the earth and our planetary system is formed. We must be able also
to reject false thories that are impossible.
There are two basic theories that explain well the birth of the
planets . First when the stars are born we know from the virial theorem
that the gas cloud from which the stars are condensen must be much
bigeer than one star so many stars are born in the same time. That
explains why binary stars are so common. But in the same time it is
probable that there are formed minor size bodies i.e. planets.
Second theory is the one that planets are born in the novae
explotion that seems more probable because it explains also the birth
of the earth kind of planets.
Now we know how planets are formed and that they are captured
by the sun.
I have posted information on this subject before so I dont
go into all the details now.Next I explain the spin orbit interaction and its
effect on the orbits of the planets. We know that when the planets have reache
d the sun the sun has rotated in opposite direction than the planets.
That means that the sun's angular momentum has decelerated the velocity
of the planets the planets have come nearer the sun.So because of that
gravitational friction sun's rotation has become in the same direction than th
e planets. So planets velocity towards the sun has lowered.But when the
angular momentum of the sun has become bigger than that of the earth
the earth gets more velocity and and so it is orbiting more far away
from the sun. That is exactly what is happening when we increase seconds
to the year. Finally we see that during 5 billion years the orbits of the
planets have changed much.
äAccording to your calculations The sun's gravity is about 10 times bigger
than Jupiter I think that that this is not so much when I said(and you omitted)
that the sun has large radiative core that Jupiter doesn't have.
When you spoke about the core I think Jupiter as all the planets including
earth have iron and nickel in their center that we know by the planet birth
theories. However there can be also silicon and other heavier elements.
When I spoke about the accuracy of the preliminary results I hinted
the information NASA gave when they said that Jupiters hydrogen composition
is smaller than first results.
Pertti Koivisto
I put my ideas shortly yet.The density of the celestial body are
determined by next three parameters :
1. Chemical composition of the body
2. gravitation
3. possible radiative core
Conclusions : 1. The sun is 7% denser than Jupiter
2. If the sun wouldn't have radiative core its density
would be bigger
3. Gravitation alone cann't explain why the sun is
denser than Jupiter
conclusions 1. The chemical composition of the Jupiter differs
from the sun so that Jupiter has more hydrogen than
the sun vis a vis helium
2. The galileos results that Jupiter has more hydrogen
than hence thought seem to be right.
> Oorts cloud does´not exist
: > About a year ago I posted my theory about the birth of the planets.
: > It says that the whole planetary system has been born in the outburst of
: >the giant star and minor and bigger planetary bodies are born in this
outburst.
: > The sun has then captured the whole planetary system including the
: >comets and asteroids. The comets that we see today (about 900) are left rota-
: >ting the earth. The large majority of the comets have collided to the planets
: >and especially the sun. According to my theory the number of the comets
: >has dramatically diminished during the four billion years the planets have
: >rotated the sun.
: > If there would be the huge reservoir of comets in the near space
: >we should see comets more oftenly than we see them today. Als the diminishing
: >rate of comets hints to the same direction. So Oorts cloud is nothing but
: >fiction.
: > Pertti Koivisto