“The bush creep, as its name suggests, is crawling out from under the bush! But where does it come from under a bush … this is not known to science. " ("Radio day")
I wonder where geniuses got to from science? I understand that there weren't too many of them before, but now, in general, some kind of emptiness has formed. It seems that the academies are full of academicians and the Nobel Prizes are handed out, they are not pinned down, but there are zero new thoughts. As one stoned naturalist came up with the theory of evolution, so we are feeding it now. Facts have long ceased to creep into it, but they are persistently urged on, because no one can come up with a new one.
But this nonsense also has a competitor! Younger, but no less tenacious and with the same habits to adjust everything for themselves. This competitor proudly calls itself "The Big Bang Theory" (TBT). And it seems there are other theories, and half of the facts do not fit into it, but humanity definitely needs to know what happened before it all started and only she is ready to give an answer to this … maybe … if we correct a couple more coefficients … well, accept some assumptions. All the same, no one will check, and not many can reason sensibly.
Was it really how they spread it to us? I will not describe heaps of irrelevant facts, but I will mention at least recent ones: the collapse of the String Theory several years ago, which is still propped up with a crooked stick;
getting connected NEUTRONS in the accelerator! that in general does not fit into any theory, although it explains the presence of neutron stars;
and the recent discovery of the fact that the same radiation comes to us from different sides of the Universe, the age of which is 14 billion years, but in this case, either we are really the navel of the Universe, which is vryatli, or the Universe is not expanding anywhere, but has always been of this size.
But if there was no Big Bang, how did it all start? This is where a stupor arises and our science follows the path - at least something is better than nothing. Let's try to figure it out and think for ourselves. Let's look at simple things and non-correspondences in theory.
Let's start with the origin of the planets. There is one amusing book in which the author expresses an idea somewhat different from the generally accepted theory of the formation of planetary systems. This book is called "The Riddles of Science" by Professor Pozdnyakov. You can google it and read it if you're interested. There, he doubted the basic principle of the formation of stars and planets by condensation from interstellar gas.
Promotional video:
Well, first of all, the atoms of matter are not only attracted by the forces of gravity, but also repel, which TBV is silently silent about. TBV believes that the stars were formed from huge clouds of gas, which is under the influence of its own gravity! not only compacted to the density of a metal, but also ignited a thermonuclear reaction. And this gas is hydrogen! which, even in the conditions of earth's gravity, is not so much denser - it cannot hold onto the atmosphere and leaves our planet in scattered clouds. Well, God bless him. This does not correspond to the fact that after the Big Bang the density of the cloud was very high and everything could have happened, but again they forget that, according to their own theory, the Universe is still expanding, and not bunching together with pieces of burning gas.
The second conclusion was generally sucked out of the finger: planets, like stars, should also be collected from gas and dust. But how to explain that there are not only gas giants, but also pieces of stone, like the Earth? After all, all elements, except for the original hydrogen, could only be obtained as a result of thermonuclear reactions on stars. They do not go on planets. Well then, let's say this: they say, the star burned out, exploded in a supernova, scattered a heap of garbage, and from it the planets turned out. But everyone can feel like a star, well, at least a piece. But this does not go away either. If this happened, then the lion's share of this dust would have been swallowed up by the star, and not new planets, and extinguished due to saturation with heavy burned-out elements. But even if so, then we would observe a planetary system where the planets would fly in different directions,along different trajectories and would be of approximately the same composition, and not rotate in a plane, and even in one direction - in the direction of the star's rotation! (as in the overwhelming case of observations of other systems). Moreover, this substance should have remained around the solar system, not formed into planets, so much that we would not be able to see the stars. The most stubborn can be reminded of the asteroid belt, which used to be a planet. It’s not even gas or dust that flies there, but quite normal, dense and heavy pieces of rock, but for some reason they do not gather in one place to please us with a new planet in the distant future, but strive to fly away and have already formed a circle around the Sun quite uniform density.(as in the overwhelming case of observations of other systems). Moreover, this substance should have remained around the solar system, not formed into planets, so much that we would not be able to see the stars. The most stubborn can be reminded of the asteroid belt, which used to be a planet. It’s not even gas or dust that flies there, but quite normal, dense and heavy pieces of rock, but for some reason they do not gather in one place to please us with a new planet in the distant future, but strive to fly away and have already formed a circle around the Sun quite uniform density.(as in the overwhelming case of observations of other systems). Moreover, this substance should have remained around the solar system, not formed into planets, so much that we would not be able to see the stars. The most stubborn can be reminded of the asteroid belt, which used to be a planet. It’s not even gas or dust that flies there, but quite normal, dense and heavy pieces of rock, but for some reason they do not gather in one place to please us with a new planet in the distant future, but strive to fly away and have already formed a circle around the Sun quite uniform density.but quite normal, dense and heavy pieces of rock, but for some reason they do not gather in one place to please us with a new planet in the distant future, but strive to fly away and have already formed a circle around the Sun of quite uniform density.but quite normal, dense and heavy pieces of rock, but for some reason they do not gather in one place to please us with a new planet in the distant future, but strive to fly away and have already formed a circle around the Sun of quite uniform density.
But then where did the planets come from, and even from burnt-out stars? The author of the book expresses a completely plausible version: these are ejections of a star - our own Sun. And not in the form of dust or solar wind, but in whole pieces as a result of powerful explosions and saltquakes. At different stages, pieces of different composition flew out. So the early planets were gas giants - they still have very few heavy elements, and rocky planets were released a little later. This explains both the flat structure of the system and rotation in the same direction with the star and the different composition of the planets. Doesn't it look like anything? Something like: "God created the Earth …"
Further, the professor was ashamed to develop his idea, or the grass simply ended, but we need to understand where the stars and whole galaxies came from. TBV is still muttering: do not believe your eyes - everything was formed from gas, and then black holes appeared and began to collect the scattered stars into star systems. Some have already been eaten, and the rest will be reached later. And they seem to be smart people … But our eyes don't lie to us: we see exactly the same structure - in the center of each flat galaxy a huge Black Hole dangles. Moreover, there are perfectly distinguishable sleeves made of stars. Think of the Chinese fireworks spinning - a picture one to one. Here you can recall that rarely, but sometimes there are spherical galaxies in the form of ragged clouds that knock out of this scheme, but this is easily and without compulsion explained by the fact that galaxies sometimes collide,merge or tear each other. This will soon happen with our Milky Way, although we will not see it.
So what happens? A black hole does not absorb matter and space, but, on the contrary, creates it and ignites the stars? So yes, as the old Jew said. It is near the center of the galaxy that active star formation is taking place now. But what is interesting again - all the stars turn in one direction and fly out along two, less often four, sleeves. This means that they were not collected from the cloud, but were formed immediately, as a solid piece of burning gas and thrown into space. If they were collected from the dust and the remains of the stars eaten by the Black Hole, they would consist of burnt out fuel, heavy elements and would no longer be able to shine for us. It turns out that Black Holes do not absorb matter and grow, but on the contrary - they disintegrate and create. This means that the stars in galaxies do not revolve around the center and it does not hold them, but fly away, making room for new stars, and the larger and older the galaxy,the less there is a Black Hole in it. The Black Hole gives them energy, not the Big Bang. This is where 80% of the lost "dark energy" and even more "dark matter" were found.
This also explains the fact that all galaxies are of different ages and are at different stages of development. You can forget your fears about getting the Black Hole in the accelerator. This is most likely impossible. It is not stable even at large sizes, let alone at the particle level.
Now, in order to answer the question of where everything came from, you need to understand what the Black Hole is, where it came from, where and where it is moving from and where it is going. It is more or less clear what is going on: the stars will gradually fade, cool down and turn into dark, radioactive metal balls, the bright sky will fade away and, perhaps, then the reverse process will begin - the compression of heavy remains of stars into new Black holes. The circle will close.
To confirm this theory, you do not need to catch relic radiation, but you must try to find a new, just nascent galaxy and look at the processes going on there. Then perhaps we can understand who created God.
ZY The post is not about God at all. Oto I see from the comments that almost no one understood this.
Author: Andrey Orlov