sábado, 21 de abril de 2012




First record: 13/04/2007 No: 401117 - liv.747 fl.227
Last record: 28/01/2011 No.: 518 - lv.
 984 fl. 167


Experiment of the COBE satellite, Published in April 1992 by George Fitzgerald Smoot III (1945 -), the University of California at Berkeley.
Conceived on November 10, 2009
Last Modified - April 2012
This blog is undergoing changes on a monthly basis in order to be corrected and updated.
 Quote from Einstein: All physical theories should be given a description so simple that even a child could understand.
The universe must be simpler than you think.Something is wrong.
 It is possible that we can not unravel this mystery, which is the universe. The problem, in my view, is the big bang theory. This theory has harmed, by far, the logical and led to errors, preventing unlock many secrets of the universe.
Just a little thought to realize, for example, that the universe rotates and does not expand.
 It's all a matter of optical illusion. At first glance, seems totally absurd, especially for those who are stuck to the old theory. Let's look at the evidence: As for the rotary movement: science does not approve of this possibility, but the evidence is so clear that we can not dismiss easily. Theories change, but the evidence does not. They may just be misunderstood. As we can see, there are theories that have been proven mathematically that were not accepted due to lack of observational evidence.The truth is that the universe is rotating, including its periphery, as in the galaxies. The universe can be likened to a giant galaxy. Only the galaxies are made of stars and the universe of galaxies. This uniformity can be realized in planetary systems, atoms, etc.. Everything turns and draws.
Due to the complexity of understanding the universe we tend to attribute their existence on the natural.
 If the universe is God's creation, then who created God? Everything has a beginning. With this thought we will get nowhere. As the rotation of the universe had nothing to do with the big bang (it was agreed that the universe has no center) that has been forgotten.
There are three ways to prove that the universe expands.
 The first is to prove that the universe revolves, though this in practice can not be used to prove the non-expansion of the universe. This rotation can not be seen easily, the second is to prove that the universe contracts. Talking about it would be a crime in the current situation and the third, perhaps more likely, is the problem of cosmic dust that dims the brightness of celestial objects.This cosmic dust filters out blue and ultraviolet rays, preventing its passage and passes red and infrared, quite easily, deceiving the observer. The farther is a heavenly glow, more cosmic dust is in front and redder it is viewed. The universe is awash with cosmic dust. The cosmic dust dispersed in the universe is not detected (but only in clusters).
"The universe is an optical illusion."
First try to prove the rotation of the universe, to show that he has a center
(The standard theory denies this).
1 - Observe the elliptical shape of the universe.This format is identical to that of a galaxy.
 If you did not rotate, its shape would be spherical and the more spin, more to flatten (see illustration above).When the bodies coalesce and fuse, the shape tends to rounded and it does not melt and are held together by the force of gravity they tend to elliptical shape, a cluster (round) or a disc, depending on the rotation. Would behave like a liquid.
2 - The galaxies closest to the center of the universe do its translational movement shorter than the most distant and being observed this center we will see, roughly, the most distant galaxies moving away faster, causing the illusion of expansion of the universe and the more
 far, the sharper the optical illusion that spin faster. It's like the planets around the sun. Our galaxy is close to that center.Unfortunately this argument is used to indicate the distance between the galaxies (will be seen later).
3 - In the universe and everything revolves attracts.We found that in subatomic particles in atoms in meteorites, in planets, stars, planetary systems, galaxies, black holes and by assumption, in the universe.
 The rotary motion is in the nature, such as the severity of the body part. This association fills the space occupied by matter. The rotation opposes gravity and the two balance each other, maintaining this harmony we see. In the space where there exist serious rotation and the stronger the gravity, the greater the rotation. It's like opposites: positive and negative, north and south, matter and antimatter, etc.. There is no antigravity antigravity force, or which deviate galaxies to infinity.
The cosmic debris clump together to form planets and satellites that are spinning around a gravitational center (star).
 A galaxy also has its stars rotating around a center of gravity (black hole). The universe, as their blends and clusters of galaxies are rotating around a center of gravity (center of the universe). This seems to be a natural condition of the universe and repetitive.
Even if the rotation of the universe is not confirmed, the evidence is very positive to be easily overlooked.
 see: "NASA's imagine the Universe" (rotation of the universe). Physical laws would not be "distorted" understanding this difficult?
They say that the universe has no center.
 This is absurd, every body has a center which can be: the geometric center, center of gravity and even virtual center, as the case of a body in a ring (donut). The same occurs with a set of bodies together by gravity (cluster of stars, galaxies, etc..). The total gravity focuses on a common center (black hole)."The universe can be likened to a giant galaxy."This will be understood better over the report. It is necessary to prove the rotation of the universe, because it will help explain dark matter.
4 - Why can not we see the rotation of the universe?
 The rotation of the universe, you may not be noticed due to the rotation and translation of the Milky Way. If the movement direction of rotation is the reverse of the translation, the sky will be seen as if they turned to an observer on earth, as happens now. A movement is opposed to the other and cancel each other. It's all an optical illusion.This may be where the English astronomer, Paul Birch, can regain its credibility with this new hypothesis, as he asserted that "the universe is expanding beyond revolved around its axis" (1982).His theory was dismissed for lack of observable evidence, even though it had proven mathematics.This phenomenon is only observed for a few thousand years, depending on the point that is occupying our planet in the galaxy at the time. I believe that the standard theory is wrong and that the universe actually rotate; including its periphery.If the rotation of the universe is proven, it's all resolved. The universe just does not expand, just spins and increases in size by accretion of matter in its outskirts, just like a galaxy (seen below). These five proofs of the rotation of the universe and the following ten oppose the evidence of two non-rotation. The reasons for denying rotation are: 1 is turned induce a kind of cosmic change in temperature "microwave background", which was not observed and 2 the presence of rotation implies that the locations along the axis of rotation were somehow "Special" which violates our understanding of relativity that the universe looks the same regardless of the location of the observer. It is now judge.
5 - If these are not sufficient evidence, leave for a different one, more likely, to prove that the universe expands.
 The cosmic dust is present throughout the universe, being more intense in the periphery, where they have their origin (explained later). As we move towards the center, this dust is further diluted because there are more concentrations of dust, forming clusters that give rise to heavenly bodies. Within the galaxies this dust dispersed, is rarer still, because I've joined the heavenly bodies inside. It is possible that nearby galaxies are seen as distant galaxies, and supernovae (because they tend to red). All galaxies have a stronger layer of dust in front, another closer, because the space is full of dust and other minute particles. This confuses the correct perception of the galaxy and can lead to misinterpretation. In addition, clusters of dust by walk eclipse space and the light
some galaxies and supernovae, pushing down its brightness, causing the illusion that they are further away, but it may one day get rid of this eclipse.This can confuse the reasoning and give the impression that all galaxies are moving away because they are red and cause the sensation of expansion of the universe.
 It was published by newsletter@sciencedaily.com:
 "Some galaxies have more than other interstellar clouds" and "The young galaxies have more dust than an old" and this must be seen to contribute to more red without indicating that they walk away.
 Some young nearby stars may be much older than thought
 December 21, 2011 - New research concludes that the stars of
Superior corpius are twice as old as before ..
 I want to show by this that we may be seeing galaxies moving away, not that this is actually happening.
 This hypothesis would eliminate the much-discussed "dark energy" galaxies may not be moving away. An example is the star "Zeta Ophiuchi", a blue star surrounded by space dust and red is seen. In this case the anomaly was noticed. There are more arguments to disprove the expansion of the universe, as we shall see.
Quote from Einstein: Not everything that is faced can be changed but nothing can be changed until it is faced.
If the rotation of the universe is ruled out, none of the suggestions presented here is accepted, we will leave to another more radical solution, but very likely to have happened.
 In the formation of the universe, there was an "implosion" of matter and energy to generate a contraction of particles that gave rise to all the stars (still happening today) and this is not a big crunch (will be shown below).
And contraction of the universe seems absurd even bigger, but it never hurts to speculate.
 The important thing is to prove that the big bang did not happen and that the universe is not expanding rapidly. This will continue trying to sit now.
10 Observe the following evidence that contradicts an expansion and a rotation, and show a contraction of the universe.
 Is there a kind of contraction that causes the galaxies become increasingly distant from the periphery, the birth of galaxies in this periphery. This is not a big crunch (will be shown below).
1 - If the big bang happened, galaxies on the periphery should be the oldest, that the matters that gave rise to it were the first to be hurled into space and the most central, the youngest, as would be the last to be
 thrown. Is not that what we see but just the opposite. The galaxies are younger and more distant views should also be seen, much older than the most central, due to the time they took to get there and how long it took their light to reach us. What we see are young galaxies, with 13.7 billion light years away, its light took time to reach us. Not including travel time up there. This is not traveled there, just born there. This suggests that the big bang did not happen, that the universe is expanding, the galaxies are born on the outskirts and walk to the center by gravity from the center of the universe in a kind of contraction, like the stars of a galaxy ( This will be explained later).
2 - The Milky Way galaxy is a very old and occupies almost the center of the universe, ie, about 100,000 light years in this center (there is controversy in the distance), where there is a massive cluster of old stars called "Great Attractor Force"
 (center of gravity of the universe) and our galaxy seems to be attracted to him (this will be seen later). If this is true, there are two hypotheses: our galaxy is moving in the space, faster and faster as you approach this center and see the other galaxies moving away faster than ever for us, giving the illusion of accelerated expansion of the universe or would spin faster, also giving the illusion of expansion. If we combine the two, the end result will be well marked, the effect red shift observed in the expansion of the universe, still going on contraction or rotation. Imagine three points on a line: O, A and B.
O is the center of the universe, galaxies A and B are (A, would be the Milky Way).
 If A moves away from O and B moves away faster than A, we have accelerated expansion is seen nowadays as A. If A is approaching faster than the B, we have also seen a rapid expansion of A, but in this case they move to the center of the universe (contraction), unlike the previous (expansion), which go to infinity.In the case of contraction or rotation, after the galaxy B arises the galaxy C, D, E etc, causing galaxies existing become increasingly distant from the periphery and this would be a big crunch or no expansion of the universe . This also suggests a continued growth of the universe and justify all existing matter. The accelerated expansion of the universe is best explained in the contraction (and not a big crunch) or rotation and dismissal naturally dark energy causing it does not exist because there would be no expansion of the universe to infinity.The distant galaxies suffer little influence and move more slowly and explain the accelerated expansion in a more logical and remove the dark energy and help to prove the rotation of the universe.Unfortunately this can not be used to prove the expansion of the universe, for the time for heeding would be too long. What is more likely to explain the dark energy, is the idea of ​​cosmic dust. See on the Internet: "Dark Side of the universe is called into question by astronomers." Perhaps, with the discovery of what causes the effect of dark matter, discover if the interference of one over the other.
The center of the universe is the center of gravity of the universe.
 Although no comment, it is clear that the universe has mass. It would be like the black hole of a galaxy. "The universe as a giant galaxy."As we are turning into orbit around the center of the universe and everything revolves around us too, we do not perceive this rotation. The universe is all an optical illusion. The problem of the red shift can also be explained by the possibility of space dust mitigate more blue and ultraviolet and does not affect the red and infrared. Perhaps the expansion of the universe is an illusion caused by cosmic dust, or effect of any component of this dust (neutrinos, axions, magnetic fields etc.).
The background noise detected, should be all the same color, because it would involve a microwave, but presents itself in the colors: red, yellow, green and blue, as detected by satellite WMPA (or vidio shown below), giving the impression
 it is a plasma that will cooling over time and more plasma arises to replace the previous one and thus will ever (go into more detail below). The red color indicates the moment of discharge of gamma rays (explained later).
3 - In an explosion, or big bang, the center was almost empty and the whole mass was in the periphery (such as supernova 1987 A).
 When there are materials in the central part (except for the nucleus), these materials have less mass than the materials of the periphery. This can also be seen in nebulae, grenades military, fireworks, etc..Everything is reversed, the universe has a lot of material with a lot of dough inside, and few subjects with less mass in the periphery, like a galaxy. This is a contradiction to the rule of an explosion and suggests that the universe is not expanding and not a big bang happened. A galaxy is not the result of an explosion, but agglomeration stars that flatten to form a galaxy. Following this route of course, understand that it's wrong.
4 - We know that the heavenly bodies are formed by the union of small bodies, which in turn are formed by the union of still smaller bodies and so forth, by gravity.
 Therefore, to be no union, it is necessary that these bodies would coalesce, and there can be no agglutination with expansion and contraction but with the universe. It would be like the human body, consisting of hundreds of quadrillion living cells. It is said that the galaxies move away, but what is observed is that they clump together and fuse from the beginning.

5 - With the Big Bang, the galaxies would be shocked or not aglomerariam.
 Would walk from the center to the periphery in a straight line away from increasingly from each other, as in all the bursts in space. Should be spread uniformly through space.There is no such uniformity in the universe, there are gaps and spaces filled with galaxies. They say the universe is expanding rapidly. Because everything crashes all the time? This should not happen in an accelerated expansion.
6 - The concentration of massive stars in the center of the universe may be remnants of galaxies that have reached their final destination.
 This also proves the contraction of the universe. The center of the universe is not well known, no one has interest in it that have not yet realized the possibility of this center being the center of gravity of the universe (is conventionally the absurdity of the universe has no center). Perhaps the Great Attractor force, nor is the cluster that pulls all the galaxies, nor is it necessary that it exists, but something pulls as was evidenced by the "Seven Samurai" (American astronomers in charge of studying this subject in 1989). This would be the center of gravity of the universe. This center does not need to have a mass inside (it would be like a wagon wheel). As the black hole is the gravitational center of a galaxy, the universe (a giant galaxy) for the same reason also has a gravitational center.
7 - If the big bang happened, the center would be the hottest part and the periphery, the coldest part, as in all the explosions.
 There is this hot center and periphery emits thermal radiation well over 13 billion years. How is it possible? This is attributed wrongly, in my view, the background radiation or echo of the big bang (This will be seen later). The age of the universe is much higher than estimated, that is, about hundreds of billions of years (this will be explained below). At the age so high, background noise should not be more evident. All this was an adaptation to justify the big bang, like many others. Expected to find one thing and found another, equally satisfactory, we cheated for decades (we will detail later).
8 - The largest concentration of galaxies at the center of the universe and becoming sparser in the periphery, just as the stars of a galaxy.
 This feature is opposed to a big bang, which is just the opposite. This seems to be repetitive in the universe. We can conclude that this is not expanding and reinforcing the suspicion and contraction or rotation of the universe (see illustration below).
9 - For the above, the galaxies are born on the outskirts and walk to the center, in a continuous process of contraction of the universe, just as the stars of a galaxy.
 How is it possible? This will be explained later. The Milky Way has about 12 billion years old and is located in the center of the universe as several other ancient galaxies. On the outskirts there are only new galaxies and the time it took their light to reach us is about 13.7 billion years and that is how we see it. We see old galaxies in the periphery.
10 - We now know that the size of the universe is 78 billion light years from end to end.
 If there was a big bang and walked galaxies at the speed of light (something seemingly impossible to happen), they would take about 40 billion light years to get where they are and in this case should be viewed much older and still have to add the time it took their light to reach us. If this had happened, the galaxies would be so far away that we would see the difficulty. The age of the universe would be well over a hundred billion years and the background noise would not be present to be detected or not the big bang happened. The cosmic inflation never existed (this nonsense will be seen later). See on the Internet: The zero point - by Jomar Morais reporter (how long the cosmos exploded?).
The above picture taken by satellite "COBE", there is a picture of the early universe (primordial), as is supposed, but the universe can be more current, seen after billions of years (the time it took light to reach us) and
 shows with hundreds of billions of years old. It shows the universe with a size of 78 billion light years from end to end. This is not an early universe, but current (large). What is old is small, of course. He was born small and grow over time (will be shown below). This interpretation is reversed. The cosmic inflation, did not happen.Indeed, evidence that the universe does not expand, in the case of cosmic dust. Perhaps this is the great discovery, in which case the universe could even be re-considered static.
 There is more evidence, but these are enough to prove my suspicions.
 See more in evidence: http://bigbangneverhappened.org errors --- the big bang --- Problems with the Big Bang ---- the controversial issue in modern cosmology, etc..
As we can see, there are many proofs of non-expanding universe.
 We therefore think this is possible, mainly to prove that dark energy does not exist and would therefore be an optical illusion. See on the Internet:
 (The universe does not expand) by Luis Biarge Baldellou see also: Universe may not be expanding rapidly, says research from USP
Until now it was believed that only a big bang, would be the only way to explain the beginning of everything, but no alternative, as discussed below.
When you deny the big bang, we must have another explanation for the beginning of everything.Here is a proposal to try to explain this problem.

Quote from Einstein: Two things are infinite: the universe and of foolish men.

Distribution of galaxies as measured by the 2dF Galaxy Redshiffht Research, covering six billion light years.
This explanation will be made quite easy to cover people with less knowledge of cosmology. Not be used mathematical calculations to prove anything.Only comments. The intention is to prove that the universe is simpler than you think. No need for complex mathematical calculations, or of extra dimensions, as well as physical laws unknown, distorted and adapted and not resort to quantum theory. The big bang theory too complicated to understand the universe and must be discarded.Before you read this whole report is very important to see the video on the Internet: "A tour of all the galaxies we know today."


 <object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/?version=3&feature=player_embedded"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/?version=3&feature=player_embedded" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>
  Here's what was posted on Wednesday, August 24, 2011 2:05 = The writing BrasíliaAcessos: 1169: "Astronomers say the Universe spins like a carousel from the Big Bang" (this title search on the Internet). If it rotates, has an axis and has an axis, a center. If the universe rotates, centrifugal force would throw out all the galaxies (this could be the dark energy). This does not happen, because there is a gravitational force pulling it inward, as if the stars of a galaxy. This force would be the dark matter (will be shown below).
The mainline intent of this blog is to show another proposal for the creation of the universe, without the big bang.
Quote from Einstein: No scientist thinks with formulas.
At the time of Einstein, the universe was considered static and was limited to our galaxy.When Edwin Hubble discovered that there were other galaxies, they went away, that everything originated in a big bang and discovered the cosmic microwave background, was a total euphoria.
 Had been discovered a new theory, dismissing everything that existed before. No one thought that all this was just a tremendous coincidence that deceived us for decades. When the first difficulties appeared to understand some phenomena of nature, Einstein was there to solve, inventing new laws that are perfectly shaped and apparently resolved the issue. He really was a genius and was convinced the new big bang theory and even acknowledged his error cosmological force. Not opposed to nothing. Only he died and now we have a lot of mysteries that need to be solved and he is not here to solve. No one feels able to counteract the great master. Scientists fear putting their reputation at stake and we can not continue in this situation. It was necessary to use particle accelerators to try to unravel the mysteries, still based on the old big bang theory, which many insist not to oppose. Only a few people now began to challenge these ideas, such as tissue spacetime, relativity, singularity, etc.. There is already talk of separating time from space.  See the magazine "Scientific American, January 2010, page 12." (So says the physicist Petr Horava, on the space-time).Perhaps some of these items are discarded. If we adopt another physical, will not solve anything. We have to admit that the cosmological physics is wrong. Finally, we have to modify the big bang theory. Who dares? Few people have this intention.Physical theories in use are based on big bang and the expansion of the universe. If the universe does not expand, it will have to be rethought.
Some articles presented here contradict the standard theory, but it was necessary to be able to think differently, Otherwise we will not leave the sameness of all time.
 Moreover, we know that the standard theory also does not clarify many doubts and is being reassessed. See technological innovations or on the Internet: Dimensions evaporate in quantum gravity.
We know that the currently accepted cosmological models depend on the gravitation "Newton".
 But there is an error that casts doubt on this theory of gravitation or the standard theory. This refers to the number of galaxies orbiting the Milky Way and one of the two has to be modified. Perhaps this proposed theory presented here help to resolve this impasse.
See on the Internet: 7 questions that frighten the people.
"What do men really want is not knowledge but certainty."
Bertrand Russell. "


Quote from Einstein: Any man who reads too much and uses the least brain acquires the laziness of thinking.

There are several interpretations for nothing, for the vacuum and into space.
 Nothing vacuum and space, may even be synonymous. A more detailed explanation of nothing is written in chapter 12.
Are now proposed some modifications in the standard theory, which will interfere with the creation model of the universe presented here.These are just my thoughts about the protests about the standard theory.
 As the astronomer João Magueijo, do not believe everything you've been taught in school.
To begin, let's say that the electromagnetic energy has always existed, because it can not be created nor destroyed, only transformed (say physics). This energy could not be created in the big bang (always existed) and could play the role of "ether", ie serve as a conducting medium of light in vacuum and is responsible for the existence of matter (seen below).
Let us assume that the universe has a center (the standard theory denies this).
 Every body has a center. That space and time have always existed (not created the big bang) and also suggests Petr Horava, physical at the University of California, Berkeley. The space is unlimited if limits exist, then the limits of this space, there is always something that is more room. An explosion or expansion of space can only occur if there is room for it. The space is not created, it already exists. Let us assume that the big bang did not happen, the lack of uniqueness, cosmic inflation, etc.. The theory of spacetime, in my view, can only be used in certain cases. See: beyond time and space, Jean Michel Jarre. It would be like saying before I was born, the time did not exist.
A team of astrophysicists in Australia and England discovered recently, evidence that the laws of physics are different in different parts of the universe.
 See on the Internet: "Laws of physics can vary throughout the universe." This, might help to understand the difference in time off the ground."Physical laws were drawn up, imagining an expanding universe." There are cases where we use four dimensions to the localizarmos (eg find me at two o'clock on the fourth floor of the corner of W to Y). In others use only one (ex: last house I live in this street) and if the location of a body in infinite space, do not use any, because there is no point of reference.
Nothing can be faster than light, Einstein said.
 As explained above speed of light in distant galaxies?To explain this we used the theory of space time, as if it were possible to explain the tissue space-time can expand at speeds greater than the light from the galaxies do not. The case of cosmic inflation is absurd. Are studying the possibility of separating time from space and if the orbit of Mercury is best explained by quantum mechanics, according to Petr Horava. See "Portuguese helps explain rotation of Mercury" (says Alexandre Correia)

The cosmic inflation is a great absurdity.
 Because it was not possible to reconcile Einstein's theory of relativity with quantum theory? Why something is wrong, of course. The interpretation of the fabric space-time to demonstrate the gravity deformation is caused by a weight placed on top of an imaginary tissue. A force of gravity from below causes the deformation of this fabric (which is made of material). It takes a gravitational force to demonstrate that gravity is a curvature of space (This is an aberration). Only matter has gravity.Gravity acting on the space is totally wrong. Matter attracts matter. It will be difficult to prove that space-time does not exist or exist in special cases.Science admits the existence of atoms of spacetime (as possible). I've always been against the existence of spacetime. Without the opinion of the scientist Petr Horava, I never have the courage to write what I write. The demonstration of the orbits of the planets by warping of space-time fabric, indicates that the planets, while losing speed, if encaminhariam to one pole of the body which orbits, which does not happen in reality. It simply falls out of orbit and perpendicular to a celestial body passing near a planet would divert down to go through the depression and then would rise again and this also is not observed. All this would indicate that a wormhole would be impossible.
 Without knowing what Petr Horava dreamed about space time, this part of the commentary is still very uncertain.
Search the internet for "Petr Horava." Dividing the space weather: the theory of gravity Petr Horava model kills the notion of "Big Bang" also as "the birth of the universe."
 Instead, the Big Bang would be a "big jump". And there would be no need for any designer!

3 - Speed ​​of Light.

It was published on 18.08.2011, in technological innovation:
("Light overcomes speed of light - two times" will be seen below).
   The light is transmitted in the vacuum of the universe at a speed of approximately 300,000 km / s, the water would 225.000Km / s, the glass in diamond 200.000Km/se 125.000km / s, etc.. We know that a perfect vacuum or absolute does not exist in our universe. The vacuum is on, ie materials exist at low pressure and at very low pressure in the world and is influenced by the photon density.Gravity influences the density, it can concentrate particles in a medium with more or less density (physical laws can vary throughout the universe).
Another explanation for this phenomenon.
The electromagnetic energy or a spark jumps from one point to another, the easier it is at low pressure. This means that photons can travel more slowly at higher pressures and higher densities and faster at low pressures and low densities (in vacuum).
In the center of the universe vacuum has a maximum density, whereas on the periphery has a minimum density. In the center of the world, there is more material and more severe, as opposed to the periphery. Therefore the speed of light in the periphery would be faster than in the center of the universe. This would explain the speed of light from distant galaxies, more simply and without using the artifice of spacetime, in this case. The speed of light varies with the distance from the universe.Therefore, it is possible that far from the center, where the density and gravity tend to practically zero, the speed of light is greater than 300,000 km / s (that must be proven) "physical laws can vary throughout the universe." It was published on 18/08/2011, technological innovation, "Light overcomes speed of light - twice." Of course this may not be true, but there are many controversies about the light. (See below).
. The deviation of starlight by the sun's gravity, which helped to confirm the theory of Einstein's general relativity, in my opinion, does not prove that it was only the gravity of the sun that turned the light. The photon, has virtually no mass and should not suffer influence of gravity. You can only suffer deflection through an environment with different density (this has already been proven). We know that the sun's surface is warmer than the environment of the universe around them, have very dense material being ejected from its surface, a magnetic force and a strong gravitational force.Finally, it is an environment with high density and can deflect light rather than gravity that should not affect the photons (although not enough, we do not know enough about the light and can have news, on the density we have no doubt). Example of news: "Brazilians create technique for measuring the speed of light" and "Scientists call node in the light," and NASA announces plans to send spacecraft to study the sun's atmosphere. "Reducing the speed of light is obtained within a silicon chip". "Paradox of the photon mass (center of logical deductions)."See also the Internet, "Magnetism of light is measured directly for the first time." "Light speed exceeds twice the light."
The magnetic field can influence the photon and be responsible for the dark black hole, as is the black patches of sun. The magnetic field can deflect light (photon) and be responsible for the illusion of dark energy
The galaxies have a cloud of dust and gas around them and their gravity coupled to gravity imposed by dark matter, this affects density. All this could have the effect of "gravitational lensing" (not confirmed yet).
According to Stephen Hawking (to prove the impossibility of a big crunch), only the space can kick, time does not. In this case the time was separated from the space, each with its function.My question is: How to kick an infinite space? If you have space limitations, only the limits of this space can move and the space this would be offset by the space may not disappear. Conclusion: can not move in space. He is infinite, boundless, like time, energy, etc.. "Einstein developed his theories, assuming an expanding universe."
Dr. Peter Hayes, argues that the theory of relativity is not science but an ideology, like Marxism.Conservapedia, the online encyclopedia created by conservative lawyer Andrew Schlafly, suggests that the theory of relativity of Einstein is part of a liberal plot (see Scientific American of November, 2010 p. 14)
I'm not supporting this idea. Just quoting what I found there. I do not understand the extra tests that are far to prove this theory. Is there still doubt?Because Einstein won the Nobel prize for this?

 Severity: do not know what gravity is, but we know that the opposite is the centrifugal force - there is no centripetal force. (See center of logical deductions. They are opposite, but not together as in magnets.
 One precludes the other and this is what makes possible all the matter in the universe spread.Analyzing a know each other. Gravity has its downside, do not know the negative gravity. It would be like the case of magnetic monopoles or "magnetricidade" (presented by technological innovations). View website: "Exotic Material spintrônicas reveals surprises."
According to the model Donoghue, there may be a chance that the speed of gravity is greater than the speed of light.

Read more: http://iupe.webnode.com/news/em-busca-do-boson-de-higgs/
 "Speed ​​of gravity may be greater than the speed of light?" (See internet).
(Based on text by Graeme Stemp-Morlock - FQXi - 12/10/2011) - John Donoghue, a physicist at the University of Massachusetts, USA.
The severity arose when the matter arose. Matter attracts matter.
 The gravitational energy is not as light, ie not traveling at 300,000 km / s. In my opinion, their action must be instant, and not by continuous waves. There are no gravitons and gravitational waves that have not been and will not be detected.It is like a string joining two bodies that rotate around each other, keeping the rope taut by centrifugal force. The rope would be the force of gravity. If the rope breaks, the two bodies will be instantly launched into space (it would be like if there were no gravity), regardless of the point where the rope was cut, or the distance between the bodies.
 This instantaneous action of gravity could perhaps explain the case of particles separated by billions of light years of each other and respond instantly to reverse rotation (quantum entanglement, spooky action at a distance, etc.).
 Speculating a bit better and studying gravity, could perhaps be used for faster communication, and travel much faster in the universe.
 The centrifugal force may also be used to eliminate the effect of gravity, that is, create an anti-gravity.
 This "alleged" experience made recently to demonstrate the deformation of space-time fabric, with gyros may have been misinterpreted. The gravity pulls gas and dust and cause deformation seen, giving the impression that the land is steeped in honey (the space is not empty).
There is no tissue deformation space time, there wormhole or journey time. by this process. See: "All aboard: Worm Hole Express will leave."
 Also say that gravity bends space around it is to say that space has gravity and this is unrealistic.The truth is: gravity bends the matter (gas) around, ie: the gravity of matter only interacts. The space appears curved, because the universe is not flat but rounded. Why gravity is a mystery to this day? Why the standard theory has no explanation for this?
Can increase the mass of a body, or only increasing the rotation speed.
This could be the Higgs boson. The field (energy) which gives the particle mass, with its spin generating a centrifugal force, a kind of gravity.Thus, the Higgs would be a particle, but an energy (gravity or electromagnetic quantum gravity) and for this reason can not be detected, as the black hole (with their imaginary gravitons) with its rotation, gives mass (gravity) to the hollow centergalaxy, eluding the perception and appearing to be a massive body, without having mass. The same happens with the center of the universe. His speed gives mass (gravity) to its hollow center giving the illusion of dark matter (it will be seen below). The Higgs boson is a gravitational energy and not a particle. The gravity is generated by the rotation of the particles. One is energy and therefore can not be detected (Higgs boson, dark matter and black hole).
 There must be many strange things written in this blog, but there are many strange things written there. See what it says on the internet Wun-Yi Shu, National Tsinghua University in Taiwan, "What if the universe were infinite?"
 They say that this blog is not reliable. My question is: Is there anything credible in cosmology? On the contrary, there is talk of another physical. Much spoken here is contrary to current theory, but you should eliminate everything that does not agree, because this new proposal does not interfere with the emergence of the universe that is the intent of this blog.
The universe is not only queerer than we suppose, it is queerer than we can suppose "(John Haldane, English biologist from 0.1892 to 1964).
See on the Internet: "seven questions about the big bang." Many adjustments were made to justify the big bang, as can be seen.
Quote from Einstein: Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not as simple as possible.
What existed before the "alleged" big bang?
Absolutely nothing.
Nothing will be explained further in chapter 12
Nothing cosmological, ie: an infinite space with extreme characteristics: an absolute vacuum at a temperature of zero degree, and therefore also absolute, the total absence of light. Absolute vacuum is like absolute zero; impossible to obtain in our Universe. Time is also another thing that is infinite and both space and time were not created in the big bang. They have always existed as electromagnetic energy. There are three requirements for the creation of the universe: energy space and time (infinite). This idea is not worse than stated below:
See the absurdity that the standard theory says: - The big bang was not an explosion but rather an expansion of content that swelled along with the space created at the time and also emerging over time. This makes no sense. The content covers a space that no matter how small, is a space. If no space, nothing can exist (for one thing there is space required). After the limits of this space there is always something that is more space or nothing and nothing is space. The space may not disappear if he had not seen the empty space, which is also space. The space always exists as the time (as is the numbering), which may also be counted in order to decrease and also goes to infinity. The time can be only one reference (eg before Christ and after Christ). Thus, energy, space and time are infinite, ie always existed as the darkness intense cold, etc.. The time began to run from now on (birth of the universe), in ascending order that can go to infinity, but can also be counted in descending order which also goes to infinity.
There are three conditions for the creation of the universe that are: energy space and time. Having enough time and space, energy turns into matter (M = E / C ²). Three conditions to generate an infinite universe with a beginning and no end, as our universe.
According to Einstein and the first law of thermodynamics, the universe exists in a fixed amount of energy and matter. This may not be true.What is there must be an infinite amount of electromagnetic energy that is being converted into matter, at every moment. This was designed, assuming the big bang. If the big bang did not happen, everything has to be modified. The matter is being created every moment. There was a certain amount of matter in the universe. Before we created the universe, there was the matter. The universe is the creation of matter (M = E/C2).
Much attention not to use the rules of the standard theory when it deems this explanation made here.Physical theories of the standard theory have been made, assuming an expanding universe. If the universe does not expand, it will have to be rethought, or do not understand what was exposed.
How long did it matter to be created (the birth of the universe)? The "SPACE" and "POWER" always been there for a "TIME" infinite waiting this event.The beginning of the birth of the universe is just a reference to start counting the time, such as the birth of Christ. Only one reference. Time is not a dimension. There is no logical need to know how long it took to initiate the birth of the universe (just an infinite time). This would be the time zero.
This is the outer space where there is nothing not even the photon. Perhaps due to extreme conditions and favorable, the emergence of the ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY, the first of four basic forces of nature, from which they came the other three (this will be explained later). We believe with this, that there is absolutely nothing, because he would be saturated with electromagnetic energy. Therefore, nothing would not matter.
Using the idea that the spacetime is born with the big bang, would not be possible to pre-existence of electromagnetic energy (the energy responsible for all) and there would be absolutely nothing.Everything would have to be created from nothing and all this would be absolutely impossible. There would be the primeval atom, space and time, the singularity, the four basic forces of nature, etc..The electromagnetic force would have to be created, as it apparently was, along with the other three (super strength), as well as the primeval atom (in the big bang theory). We would also have to admit the artifice of the singularity where the laws of physics fail. The theory of space-time is already under suspicion and a number of other inconsistencies. All this means that outside the universe there is an infinite space. The universe is located on a point of no references that can not be located by anyone in this infinite space. In this case there is no dimension will use to locate it. See Scientific American (Special) No. 41 (Feb. Mar. 2011): "Time is an illusion" and see also "The time may end up."
Tell physics: the electromagnetic energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed. Soon, it could not be created in the big bang, she would always have to exist.Electromagnetic energy is the "God" of science, creator of all things and do not need to be worshiped or require sacrifices from anyone (an unknown to be discovered).
Electromagnetic energy is an immaterial existence capable of producing changes and, as such, can produce matter or vice versa (E = MC ² or M = E / C ²). This energy is the primordial energy, replacement of the primeval atom illogical theory of Big Bang. Energy is a mystery to scientists, starting with the definition.
This electromagnetic force of the alleged extra-space universe, we know little or nothing: as it is (load, radiation, spin, ropes, etc..), How did, how it behaves in the extracellular space infinite universe, where this energy is also infinite . This seems an impossible thing, but it is not. Every empty space is occupied by electromagnetic energy and gravitational energy, if any matter. Energy is eternal. It all depends, perhaps, a new theory: the theory of space outside the universe, as the law of quantum theory of atomic universe and the laws of Newton to the mechanics of our universe (three basic universal laws, at least).
Three basic universal laws, the three fundamental colors, four basic tastes, the four basic forces of nature, four amino acids for the formation of DNA, etc.. Nature makes combinations of three or four things, for a multitude of different effects. So it uses two up quarks and one down quark for a proton and an up quark and two downs for a neutron and the union of the two stem nucleus of an atom and the atoms make up all matter in our Universe. Observe the three riddles of nature: the origin of the universe, life and intelligence and abstract three items: energy, space and time for the creation of the universe, which in my opinion perhaps always existed. See also the three cases for obtaining life: amino acids, energy and water (or liquid), etc..
Note that in these cases, the pre-existence or energy and the time or space, and are always present in any event at least once during the three following items:
= Energy space and time universe.
Energy, amino acids and water = life.
Life, Time = evolution and intelligence.

 6 - How did the MATERA

How did all this matter in the universe, in the beginning there was nothing? According to the theory of Big Bang, the primeval atom has always existed (from nothing) and this little atom disintegrated (not sure how), turned into energy that turned back on and filled the whole universe and having to be taken into account, matter and antimatter that annihilated during the Big Bang and an extra amount of matter left over from this explosion (not sure how) and it filled the entire universe in a miraculous way. We still have the dark matter that this theory also want to add this event beyond the four basic forces of nature. How much can fit in a small area primeval atom? That overwhelming force would be needed to compress the matter so much? The universe is extremely huge. Where did this force? What kind of force is this and what's your name? We know that if we eliminated all nuclear area between a person, we would have the equivalent of a grain of sand weighs about 80 pounds, the whole world's population would be the size of an orange, with about 100 million tons, the whole universe as a planet much larger than Jupiter. Clear all this space is an inter atomic thing impossible.
Where did so hard to make this service? Moreover, a disintegrating atom is too complicated to occur by chance. How did the primordial atom? Miracle or Magic? There is no way accept such a justification.To go from nothing to everything there is only one explanation: the electromagnetic energy of space outside the universe (nothing is energy, everything is matter). "The big bang theory is limited to justify the mass of the universe and its thermal equilibrium," says Carneiro Hugo Reis, PhD in particle physics at the University of Campinas (SP) and author of a study on the production of matter in the early universe . "It would be necessary to fine-tune the equations that demonstrate the theory in order to reconcile it with what is observed today in the cosmos" (More adaptation). See details in: "Ground Zero" - Jomar Morais reporter.
We still have the first law of thermodynamics which says that all matter and all the energy of the universe was contained in the primeval atom.
According to the formula of Albert Einstein's E = MC ², where M = E / C ²; to obtain energy of matter (E = MC ²) as in the case of the Big Bang, we have to splitting the atom and this creates matter and antimatter to annihilate and generates a burst of energy, which is the purpose of the Big Bang (and LHC). This is destruction of matter and not creation. In the formula M = E / C ² have no explosion, but, maybe, an implosion. C ² means an electric spark. We know that having electromagnetic energy in a vacuum, of course there will be spark and after a spark, unleashed an infinite series of them - a mega electromagnetic implosion - the real Big Bang, transforming energy (E) on (M), ie: M = E / C ². See website: "Scientists transform energy into matter" and "scientists use light to create particles." In this experiment, clashed photos of gamma rays with light green leisure high power, used to extremely strong magnetic fields in an atmosphere of an extreme vacuum, etc.. It was about those conditions mentioned above (extra space universe).
These super ESD (gamma rays) came from all directions, initially around a point supposedly opposite polarity (mutant), which soon turned into a ball of plasma, which continued to increase slowly and infinitely in diameter, expanding by accretion of matter, very fast at the beginning and becoming slower as he grew older, when the ESD became less frequent plasma ball and hit a huge size (it would be like a star creating complex stories inside). As the universe grew, the core was cooling it (see video of the satellite WMPA), turning into gases and small particles that were coalescing by gravity and was initiated at sub atomic particles such as those formed quarks. These should be formed under different particles, so much so that there are six types of quarks. Hence arose the atoms that formed the stars, star clusters, galaxies quasars, etc. (entropy). Today this plasma is present in the periphery of the universe and is confused with the echo of the big bang (see figure at the beginning of this blog). Therefore there is no singularity, the expansion of the universe, cosmic inflation, and other inconsistencies.
According to the photograph taken by the COBE satellite microwave (see figure), the periphery of the universe presents a series of red and blue spots. The red color is the hottest part of the blue and the cooler. This temperature, perhaps, can not be measured correctly by all that is thin on the outskirts of the universe, as in the galaxies. The same can be seen in more detail in the satellite picture WMPA (see video).

Gamma rays generate cosmic rays that make heavy materials supplying periphery of galaxies.See what was published on 02/01/2011. "Galaxies in the distant era of reonização."
"VLT observations of gamma-ray burst ingrediendientes show" ...
These ESD (gamma rays) are responsible for the flare at the ends of the universe. There are about 30 million per year, or approximately one discharge every second with a variable energy, the most powerful, equivalent to about more than 200 billion stars for each discharge. These discharges are becoming more intermittent in time (at the beginning would be continuous), and are what is most energetic in nature. I believe that as we did not know the exact origin, have been attributed to several factors such as: explosions of supernovas, the supermassive black holes, for collisions between neutron stars, etc.. This is happening around well over 13 billion years (age of the universe uncorrected) and if true, would there not be any more heavenly body to be destroyed today and we would not have so many discharges recorded and many stars in the sky. This happens since the beginning of the universe and it is these discharges that cause the explosions of stars, turning them into nebulae. After all not a star was born every second (mainly supernova), each star takes billions of years to form. In a stellar nursery, the stars are not formed at the same time, although many stars are formed, there is a very wide range of birth between them. Moreover, it takes billions of years before it reaches a certain age to explode (the current standard theory). The universe started small, of course. Everything starts small and early, destroying a star for the second was more than the number born. This would be destructive to the universe. And he would not have grown, we would not have so many stars in the sky and would not be here. It is true that the stars may explode and emit gamma rays, but are of lower intensity and less frequently. It is known that a star does not have enough energy to explode and this was attributed to energy neutrinos due to their detection in an experiment done at the time of the explosion of supernova 1987A. Is this not a false alarm. "These neutrinos come months later when we expected," says Ronald Shellard. The latest research in this regard, attributes the explosion of sound effects (Scientific American, Special-Milky Way, out.nov., 2010, p. 36) . My proposal presented here, the gamma rays are responsible for the explosions, not out of conjecture and seems more logical. Maybe more than one cause.
See on the Internet: 3D simulation shows supernova explosion, where it says: It's very rare to observe a supernova really - was just one in 380 years. Whenever there is change, there will be emission of gamma rays, cosmic rays, antimatter, neutrinos, etc.. e = mc ² (disintegrating matter), m = e / c ² (gamma-ray burst) and c = e ² / m (action of black holes). This review is part of the most controversy, but could not be different. Nothing is fully explained yet. There are many questions about supernovae have not yet been clarified. According Avishay Gay-Yam, we do not really know much about supernovae. See on the Internet: Fermi detects chocking surprise from supernova's "little cousin".
Because the nebulae are different from each other?Every boom has its own pattern. This, in my opinion, is due to the point where the gamma rays reach the stars (or south pole), its rotation, age, size, etc..
Discharges of gamma rays, are what is most energy in the universe and this would be what are known as big bang. Therefore, there is a plethora of "bigs bangs" responsible for creating and maintaining the growth of the universe. Each discharge of high energy is transformed into plasma and then micro-particles of matter that cluster, while other outlets and other similar processes start interfere with each other and follow the normal universe entropy, that is, agglomerates are formed stars , galaxies, etc..
These ESD, with large amounts of gamma rays and antimatter might (tbc), generate energy fields under intense heat (emits many photons) and very intense magnetic fields that cause an interaction capable of transforming energy into matter. Maybe it can also sterilize nearby galaxies, making it impossible to life in these regions, next heavenly bodies disintegrate, exploding stars, new or old (super new), transforming them into nebulae and even cause small solar flares, the distance as with our sun (storms, solar tsunami, super flash, etc..) and it is quite possible that some are responsible for mass extinctions that occurred in the past of the planet earth, as the explosion of poorly explained Tungusca in Central Siberia in 1908 by Sprits , Elvis, etc.. (Radii above the clouds), the transient lunar phenomena (lunar flashes), create magnetáris, magnetized rocks from the moon, which is currently a mystery, called lunar dynamo.Would also be responsible for indecipherable fire balls (or balls of light). Ball lightning
 There are photographs of lightning, in which they appear, in fractions of seconds, ten balls ambient light. But, with the permanence of these gamma rays is much larger balls. This sometimes is confused with ÓVINS.
It would be also responsible for the explosion of whale (sperm whale), Taiwan, óvins (UFO), fog-mail (nickname given to a very strong and mysterious energy that was detected when a driver crossed the Bermuda Triangle), not mysterious aircraft accident conveniently explained, damaging compasses, computers and instruments, causing lack of aircraft (eg, perhaps the flight of the aircraft's air 447 2009 France and other) accidents transmission of electricity (blackouts), earthquakes, the case of death of Jeannie poorly explainedSaffin, who suffered spontaneous combustion in front of witnesses. In this and in other similar cases, the spontaneous combustion took place from inside to outside the body, preferably in body fat. This suggests that this is probably microwave and gamma rays from antimatter which may lead to a burst of energy.
 Through walls without a trace, are concentrated beam, and intensity varied in diameter and not make noise as the atmospheric rays. See on the Internet: spontaneous combustion.
Spontaneous combustion (antimatter)

See also the case that appeared on May 4, 2007 in the village of Kurmagram in the Indian state of West Bengal. Five elephants were found dead in mysterious ways, grouped in a clearing near a river. They had their bodies scorched by heat, bloodshot eyes, unmarked ray through the body and were not poisoned. See on the Internet: Mysterious death of five elephants in West Bengal.
  The case of "death of fish in the river Acre," leaves no doubt. They opened one still living, dying and found internal burning. This can only happen with microwave. Posted by oaltoacrenoticias on 26/07/2010. It happened also with birds, flocks of sheep, etc..
See also: the case of earthquakes from heaven, that is, gases apparently warmer (with temperturas acimade 400 degrees centigrade) that appear for a few seconds. There are many fires without apparent cause. Perhaps it is also responsible for the case of Lake Nyos in Cameroon in Africa, on the elimination of CO ² from the lake bottom and methane hydrate from the seabed in the triangle of Bermuda, caused perhaps by discharges of gamma rays. There are many more cases not cataloged. Several people reported that strange lights had suffered burns from the sky.
It may be also responsible for the appearance of life on earth and by changes in living things (changes in DNA), etc.. Speculating a bit, we can say that also could have blasted our sun, partly by launching within a ring of matter that would later lead to the planets as probably happened with "ETA CARINA". Many of these cases are found on the Internet.
They say that old stars and supermassive collapse, explode and generate black holes. As stated, this would be destructive to the universe. When an explosion leave a cloudy as a result, it is believed that it was an exploded star and when there was a black hole. Moreover, there are old stars and monstrous not collapsed on itself, whereas smaller and younger stars have disappeared. This makes no sense. See on the Internet: "Star defies magnetic theory of black holes", ie:
In 18/o8/2010 was published European astronomers shown for the first time, that a star magnetic formed from a star with at least 40 times the mass of the sun. The result challenges current theories of stellar evolution. Until then it was believed that a star with a mass of this magnitude should become a black hole. Take the case of a star that turned into a diamond of 10 billion trillion carats. That's what should happen to a star that collapsed on itself and not turn into a black hole or explode. I see no logic to this.
It is likely that when a star is young or old hit by gamma rays, it explodes, becoming cloudy. The older a star is more likely has to be destroyed due to the time it was exposed. However there are stars that seem older than the universe and remain whole. "THIS MAY MEAN THAT WE ARE WRONG AND THAT YOU KNOW THE THEORIES NEED TO BE REVISED" said Avishay Gay Yam, Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel, on the explosion of a star with the theory. See on the Internet: "Explosion of a star along with the theory."
It appears that the explosions are caused by clashes between the strong magnetic fields of discharges of gamma rays and magnetic fields of stars. These discharges could cause contractions and expansions of the stars before the final explosion depending on the magnetic polarity of the stars found in the moment of confrontation, these discharges must also contain gamma rays and antimatter, which would cause a huge explosion as it crashes into the matter. See on the Internet: "For our supernovae do not explode?"
I do not see why a star that is condensed by force of gravity must explode. It can condense and even become a neutron star or diamond, but exploded for this reason I see no logic. If so, could explode materials using a gigantic press (not to speak of creating mini black holes?). There are heavenly bodies alone, monstrous, erased and cold roaming the universe as planetary or stellar black holes and this could be the end of the stars that did not explode. These black holes capture materials of the universe as you walk in space and will increase in size. We notice a very dense atmosphere around them. These are black holes that can explode when they collide with other stars of the universe (see the nebula IC4406). Apparently it was a clash between two cups solid or semi solid.
See on the Internet: "Astronomers have discovered a new class of black holes."
Why is there so much difference in supernova explosions. Should follow its own pattern.
We are in a privileged area of ​​the universe, that is, away from the gamma rays more dangerous than extra space radiation universe and away from the galactic center. This region of the galaxy is conducive to life.
In 1985, it was observed for the first time, a supernova 140 years old, the physics professor, Stephen P. Reynolds, State University of North Carolina, USA. This observation suggests that not only old stars and massive or exploding. Recently it was discovered a kind of cosmic bubble (like soap bubble), probably the explosion of a newborn star.In my view, a nebula originates from a young star has a clean look and spherical, with the possibility of disappearing faster; already caused by an old star, it appears misshapen and dirty, as nebulae ant, cat's eye, hourglass, propeller, etc., because they present more complex material in its interior.Not only are stars that explode, black holes, planets and planetary (or stellar) may also suffer these damages. See what was published in newsletter@sciencedaily.com: On 12/10/2010, a giant star in a distant galaxy, recently ended his life shrouded with a powder instead of the typical bangs. Notice that the nebulous "IC4406" with an appearance of a square and very dense, has an aspect that was a solid body that exploded.
It was published on 05.03.2010 Science Today, an article that says: Misty discoveries of young stars in the constellation "Orion" - The European Southern Observatory dubbed it "the cosmic bat."
These discharges (gamma rays) whose temperature reaches a few trillion degrees centigrade, behave like rays, penetrating deep into the universe, but seldom with danger to our planet.
Not all gamma-ray bursts, causing these disasters, many of them, those of shorter duration, are just normal ESD have not found a major obstacle as to prevent its passage, the center of the universe.They are therefore two main types of supernovae: No le 2 (there are others), depending on what is found in front of you. The satellite Beppo in 1977 was the first to observe that the long GRBs, occur in the direction of galaxies, suggesting they found a celestial body. Our galaxy is located at a safe distance of irradiation extra universe. In the past was closer. This would be an impediment to life in distant galaxies (periphery).
Recently NASA has detected a strong sound in deep space that defies belief or any explanation, according to Alan Kogut from the Goddard Space Flight Center, USA. They do not know the origin of this noise. According to explanations, they expected to hear a faint sound of the background radiation and heard a bang six times higher than expected. This, in my opinion, is the sound of a discharge of gamma rays, which coincidentally was directed to the detector and was first recorded.More details on Google at: more mysteries in cosmology and NASA more mysteries in cosmology.

8 - the Higgs boson, gravitons, BLACK HOLE AND DARK MATTER.
These ESD or gamma rays (the first basic force of nature) cause an interaction, which gives rise to strong nuclear force, which serves to bind strongly to particles and the weak nuclear force, responsible for the instability of particles, such as decay, radioactivity, etc.. These two forces are the 2nd and 3rd basic forces of nature responsible for the creation of matter and gravity (the 4th basic force of nature). Are created there, cosmic rays, these atomic particles traveling at high speeds through the universe. This condition of the electric field, magnetic field, vacuum and high temperature (ESD), in my view could be one reason for the emergence of the Higgs boson, the field that gives rise to particles with mass.
We know that the particles have a spin (spin) and this creates a centrifugal force and therefore a gravitational force that would give mass to particles and this could also be the "Higgs boson". Massless particles, there should be rotation (spin).
Would be three conditions to act as an energy field and cause mysteries. Are they: the gravitational force of the universe, would be an illusion of energy responsible for dark matter (will be shown below).The gravitational energy of a galaxy, which would be the black hole mass without mass. WITH its supposed gravitons. It would be a hollow center with a strong magnetic and gravitational force and the spin of a subatomic particle, which would be the Higgs boson, a gravitational force ELECTROMAGNETIC OR quantum gravity, which would give the particles mass.
Higgs boson - quantum gravity
Black Hole - Galactic Gravity
Dark Matter - Severity of the universe
 With the emergence of second and third basic forces of nature, and thus the matter came to GRAVITY.
Now yes, we have the primordial matter; NO MATTER antimatter. There is no parity this case.The universe was not born of the disintegration of an atom. That's what our universe is made, only matter, no use looking for antimatter in our universe because it does not normally exist. There is, in the center of black holes (in galaxies), where there are collisions between high energy particles C ² = E / M and this would be the "Antimatter" (not confirmed yet). The production of matter over antimatter is.This disappears in contact with matter in the universe once it is produced and is issued in the form of jets of energy through the event horizon (no proof). Spoke to soon it was discovered a belt of antimatter around the planet earth (this nonsense still needs confirmation).
Established mass, gravity arises, the fourth and last basic force of nature. So, was responsible for the agglutination of newly formed particles in the universe. .) There was a superpower.
 With gravity came the stars, galaxies, black holes, planets, asteroids, comets, meteorites, rotary motion and thus the centrifugal force, responsible for modifying the shape of the Universe from round to elliptical (see Figure .)
Inside the Universe, a large part of these micro-particles are free particles together to form bigger and bigger, until we get to quarks, which have joined together to form protons and neutrons, which were associated with electrons, giving rise to the first atoms. The proton is attached to the electron giving rise to the hydrogen atom, the true primeval atom, this atom is the most abundant. From this point on we know the whole story, but it is worth remembering. To do this we will make a brief comment: the hydrogen atom is taken here as primeval atom, because it is the simplest of atoms, with only one proton and one electron in its orbit, one of the first atoms to form in nature and in large quantities. A cloud of atoms, when you purchase a certain volume, the force of gravity acts and concentrates the gas in a core that heats up to thousands of degrees centigrade and form stars.These suns fuse hydrogen nuclei within their first transforming it into helium, then carbon and all atoms in nature and thus responsible for everything in the universe, including life (this is what the standard theory says .)

The stars form and attract each other, forming a star cluster. The stars of this cluster have rotation and translation, as a natural consequence of the laws of the universe. Can be compared to turning fish, forming a school ball. The stars are formed due to the concentration of gases and particles, even within the galaxies.
The force of gravity of each star interacts with each other, and interferes with the overall sum, which is reflected in the cluster center, giving it an appearance of super-massive without having mass.It's just an empty space called black hole with great force of gravity. The center of gravity of a body is the sum of the severities of all the particles that make up this body and a star cluster or a galaxy can be compared to a solid body in this regard.Both have plenty of space between the materials.Then come the questions: why does it turn? What is the direction of rotation? All this is due to gravitational force. We will not elaborate. This does not have the slightest interest at the moment.
The force of gravity, the greater the center, this center is turning with greater speed and drags the remainder of the cluster. This rotation causes the cluster to flatten by centrifugal force, turning it into galaxy and rotary motion, strongest in the center, gives rise to a void due to centrifugal force. This center, fully hollow is called black hole mass without mass. This also generates a magnetic field that can influence the photon and cause the darkness of the black hole. It would be like sunspots (dark spots) that are caused by magnetic fields of the sun. The higher the magnetic force, the greater the larger dark spot and the deviation of light.
The centrifugal force pushes the raw edge of the hole against the black material in front (event horizon), causing a clash between materials that disintegrate and turn into a jet of gas and energy that is sent into space. So yes, there is parity. This is more intense while it is still newly formed star (quasar) and is attenuated following
while the periphery of the black hole, does not reach an equilibrium, a correct speed in relation ace stars in the galaxy, the materials will continue crashing, crumbling generating "Antimatter" and emitting jets of gas and energy to the space (C ² = E / M .) Even in equilibrium, emit a mist of gamma rays (in the form of bubbles). Black holes grow, with increasing speed of rotation of these black holes, ie: increase or increased mass of the galaxy.The force of gravity is an eternal energy, which can rotate a black hole indefinitely, making the galaxy, a continuum, just as the electromagnetic energy creates matter infinitely.
If you fall into a black hole, will be rotated at a speed too great, and thrown, by centrifugal force, toward the event horizon and will be disintegrated.
  This type of black hole would be a galactic black hole. Another type of black hole would be formed by the heavenly bodies dead and wandering planets, stars, neutral, etc.. A third type is the virtual black hole. When two or more celestial bodies attract each other they can create a virtual center of gravity between them and revolve around this center. With this, not to say that the heavenly bodies rotating around an invisible point, are swirling around a black hole. It may be just a virtual center of gravity, created by them. Another example of a virtual center of gravity is the center of gravity of a ring-shaped body. See on the Internet: NASA spacecraft orbiting places "anywhere."
Another important point is to say that the density of a black hole tends to infinity (singularity). This contradicts the laws of physics say that the time "to" inside is premature. Although it is assumed that a collision between galactic black holes, and cause an explosion that would cause a gravitational wave in the universe and that can be detected, but if you want to experience the great explosion of the big bang, only today we could not detect anything. All this, in my opinion, is just speculation. The galactic black hole has no matter in its interior, has a strong gravitational force and has a magnetic field perpendicular to the galaxy, just as the universe (I'm comparing the universe to a giant galaxy). Only the galaxies are made of stars and the universe of galaxies.
This magnetic field could interfere with the light and make it look darker (red) and cause the illusion of dark energy.
It is possible that a star that has a certain gravity, this gravity increase after becoming a black hole. It may happen that reduce the mass, but gravity remains the same. This is more logical.
The black hole is another thing that suffers many interpretations and speculations. There are people who believe that every black hole is composed of a solid body, with a lot of dough. There are others who assume they can form a wormhole and even be possible to travel through time and into other universes, etc.. All these are just speculations, there is no proof of anything. We must be very careful not to get carried away toward the religious or supernatural, due to failure to understand the universe. An example of this is what it says physicist Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute in Canada: "Inside a black hole space and time stops." Smolin's idea, then, are we on the other side of a black hole that exists in another universe (pure speculation). We inhabit a black hole that is the center of the universe. Another important point is to say that the density of a black hole tends to infinity (singularity). This contradicts the laws of physics and the time to say that inside is premature. Although it is assumed that a collision between galactic black holes, and cause an explosion that would cause a gravitational wave in the universe and that can be detected, but if you want to experience the great explosion of the big bang, only today we could not detect anything. All this, in my opinion, is just speculation. The galactic black hole has no matter in its interior, has a strong gravitational force and has a magnetic field perpendicular to the galaxy, just as the universe (I'm comparing the universe to a giant galaxy). This magnetic field could be interjected into the light and cause the illusion of dark energy. Where are the remnants of supernova explosions, it is assumed today that was an explosion of a star, otherwise it was a black hole. Another phenomenon observed correlated is the case in small metal rings, in which there is a small current flowing continuously in the interior (perhaps a magnetic field induced by the space). There is therefore a phenomenon observed in hollow centers of objects with mass.
Now compare this explanation presented here, about black holes and classical explanation on this very subject. To begin the explanation is made, using quantum mechanics. This explanation is too complicated, does not clarify anything, leaves many questions and is based on misinterpretation (Scientific American special issue No. 41, pag.61).
Quote from Einstein: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not as simple as possible."
All this is only my opinion and can be discarded, because almost everything is speculation in the universe, moreover, much written here has not been proven. We have one thing in mind: nothing is final in the universe. Everything changes. What is said today may be different tomorrow. This is how the cosmology evolves.
Is currently using quantum theory to try to explain the secrets of the black hole, yet not getting satisfactory results.
Not all primordial matter followed the normal development until the hydrogen atom. Many of these materials were still in various stages of evolution, taking the intergalactic space of the Universe, as well as many hydrogen atoms that have not become stars, dust and complex matters, released by exploding stars.
The process of creating the universe did not cease; keeps happening ESD (gamma rays) and produce several types of matters on the periphery, indefinitely.
Galaxies grow by feeding on gases in the periphery, this was published on 14/10/2010 by newsletter@sciencedaily.com This is being attributed to the formation of dark matter.
The universe also grows, absorbing materials on the periphery of newly formed universe.
The ESD on the outskirts of the universe produce a wide range of irradiation of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as "gamma rays" with super-powerful discharge at random points in the universe, generating intense magnetic fields, X-rays, radio waves, neutrinos, a huge amount of photons and these photons can generate particles and thus matter. The very raw energy generated by these discharges, such as magnetic (iron), are tossed violently by very strong magnetic fields and this would be the COSMIC RAYS, some very high energy.
 "Cosmic rays form heavy materials that supply the outskirts of galaxies in the universe."
According to the physicist Tango Gustavo Medina, the Institute of Astronomy Atmospheric USP: it is believed that the very energetic particles could be accelerated by the action of very intense magnetic fields in large regions of space, but there are few known cosmic objects that meet these conditions (so far). Article extracted from the Galileo magazine No 160 Nov. 2004 pg. 58. For more details, I suggest reading the Scientific American magazine six years, No. 68, January 2008. - EXTREME UNIVERSE, pg. 44.
These ESD (gamma rays) are responsible for the creation of matter and the background noise detected by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson (pigeon poop) and wrongly attributed, in my view, the echo of the Big Bang. This was just a coincidence. Searching for a radiation and met another equally satisfactory, we cheated for decades. This radiation remains active today. See on the Internet: Dark Side of the universe is called into question by astronomers.
NASA is currently doing studies on this cosmic background radiation.
See on the Internet: "Clouds of cold dust surrounding our galaxy" and "Plank reveals first light of the universe."
I think it would be impossible to detect the echo of the big bang now. It would be like now detect the echo from the nuclear explosion occurred in Japan during World War II. This would only be possible today, if the observer were about seventy light years away from earth. If an explosion occurs in a given region will no longer be possible to observe the explosion of this region at a future time, but only its effects left in place. The Milky Way is located very close to the center of the universe, which would have been the supposed big bang.
In an explosion like the Big Bang, the core would be hotter than the periphery, which cools rapidly and we have no sign of warming in the center of the universe, and if this edge is heated, for well over "15 billion years, "can not be attributed to the echo of the Big Bang, but the remnants of ESD suggested here (it's all a matter of interpretation).
The universe continually grows by accretion of matter newly formed in the periphery, as in an ongoing implosion, or as a galaxy. The older stuff is in the center, while the most recent are at the periphery, like galaxies (that is repetitive in the Universe). The black holes destroy matter by turning it into energy (perhaps dark energy), compensating for the creation of this matter at the edges of the universe. Thus, the universe is in constant creation and destruction. The Universe is not open nor closed, it is rotating and remains active indefinitely; is eternal --- had a beginning and will never end --- powered by electromagnetic energy is infinite, from the extracellular space universe, also infinite. There is therefore a perpetual transformation of energy into matter (M = E / C ²). Everything that exists in the universe, was generated by electromagnetic energy, so we are not stardust, but from the electromagnetic energy of space outside the universe (so far).
With this new thinking, I believe that many cosmological questions will be addressed, as apparently some of them and Sanei will also be possible to make corrections or add some new ideas on these and other theories more logical.
Quote from Einstein: The only man who is free of errors, is one that does not risk getting it right.
The age of the universe has to be rethought.
Nothing prevents the existence of other universes.
As the words highlighted as: matter and antimatter, cosmic rays and the Higgs boson, see the magazine article suggest Galileo No. 160, Nov.2004 p. 57. These items remain unresolved until now (maybe).
The four basic forces of nature, apparently, were never united into a single force (super strength), as the standard theory but were derived from the electromagnetic force, as stated.
As this model theory is based on much speculation, I suggest discarding items that disagree and just focus on the most important is that: "The creation of the universe."
Note: all this we have just read is only my opinion according to my interpretation of the facts. All this needs to be proven. Maybe it's just one of the theories presented, for example: String theory, steady state, M theory and others. The important thing is to participate with new ideas in order to decipher this mystery as old as humanity.
If this proposal is demonstrated, we conclude that, in terms of initial formation the particles of matter, is not necessary to use the particle accelerator (LHC), but an electromagnetic discharge, where these particles are formed. The particles obtained by the LHC, the same may not be generated by electromagnetic discharge, it is from a disintegration of matter and the other is the creation of matter. The energy and dark matter, the exotic, the cosmological force, etc.., May perhaps be abolished altogether. A lot can change. I'm not trying to prove anything, just to show another way to solve this mystery that is the universe.
The Problem of expansion or contraction of the universe, can only be understood correctly by an observer outside the universe. If the inside, which in our case, it will double reading, because there will be a fixed point of reference. This is the case of two trains stopped in a station. If one starts walking, you will not know where you are walking and stood still. After you see the station as a reference source, we know the truth.
Quote from Einstein: "All our science, compared with reality, is primitive and childlike. It is, however, is the most precious thing we have."


Dark Matter is a form of matter that interacts onlygravitationally.
As mentioned above, the severity of a body is the sum of gravity of all the particles which make up this body. We can also see that the center of gravity of a galaxy (black hole) is roughly the sum of the gravities of all stars that make up this galaxy.The same applies to the universe, ie the center of gravity of the universe is roughly the sum of theseverities of all the galaxies that make up this universe. Therefore, we have a very stronggravitational field, which would act proportionatelyin all the galaxies, influencing its rotary motion, would justify the gravity of the total galaxy clustersand explain other phenomena correlated. This would be an extra gravity, interfering with thegravity of galaxies. Thus, its effect would be like anextra mass, imaginary, called dark matter, which isnothing less than the force of gravity of the universe and for this reason can not be detected, because it is an energy. The gravity of the universe is concentrated in the center of the universe (aswould be the center of a sack of potatoes) and thisgravitational center attracts all galaxies to this point. Gravity is stronger in the center of the universe and less intense in the periphery. This isone reason that physical laws are different for each point of the universe.
This extra force of gravity (dark matter) can be used to perhaps try to explain the case of the Effect Casemir.
Now, astronomers appear saying that dark mattercan not exist. This was quoted in "electronic newsletter on technological innovations", on30/11/09, under the title: "The law of gravityreviewed may dispense with dark matter."
I've said this a long time and maybe now is beingconfirmed.

Since there is no expansion of the universe (galaxies do not move to infinity), there is also no such dark energy. Dark energy, in my opinion, may be due to the effects of cosmic dust, as explained above or a kind of sub practically invisible particles generated during the formation of matter and therefore undetectable and that is part of the cosmic dust and filtraria blue and ultraviolet rays.As we can see, there is dark energy and we have to find a way to prove that the red shift is an optical illusion.

Science Daily (February 1, 2008) - at the University of St Andrews astronomers believed that the problem of dark matter and energy would be solved at the same time. This just happened here (I believe).
Quote from Einstein: "Great souls have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
Now it all seems very simple and great mysteries.
Just take another theory of the creation of the universe and a new interpretation of the facts and everything seems to be resolved.
Am I right?
I do not expect praise and harsh criticism, but I am against many scientists, established theories and concepts standard. It's like the introduction of heliocentrism, replacing geocentrism. Glad you're in the 21st century.
As with other authors, also will not see the end of this debate and I think that this theory does not give you anything. For this reason, I dispensed with mathematical calculations, making it as simple as possible to be abandoned in case of being discarded this model theory. There are theories that took decades to be recognized and others that although they have not been proven mathematically accepted for lack of observable evidence. Here was only used a basic formula (E = MC ²) with evidence and many other interpretations.
I have made some mistakes, because I stretched too much on certain issues. In the universe, nothing is final, anything can have several interpretations.Many errors have been committed and are still happening. Should be some adjustments needed to improve the report.
My main intention is to show that there was the big bang and that the universe expands. The rest are details to justify my proposal and can be discarded because it does not interfere with the main idea.
Quote from Einstein: Who has never made a mistake, never tried anything new.
Does the universe is actually simpler than you think? We have to think in a logical universe, simple, logical laws and not complex and indecipherable.
Because the big bang theory is the more accepted now?
Why is she the one that best meets your needs, although it can not solve all the mysteries of the cosmos and other complications. Yet the theory exposed here is a well-modified, that seems to solve these mysteries.

12 - Conclusion:
If you disagree with anything written here, you can discard it and follow what you think logical, why should not interfere with the main idea: The universe had its origin in nothing. The nothingness does not exist, because if there would not be here.There is always something else to give. So nothing would be the lack of anything tangible (matter). The absence has a definition: the existence of abstract things such as: The absence of heat (it would be the intense cold), pressure (vacuum), light (darkness) beyond space, time, etc.. They are not tangible things that gave rise to electromagnetic energy. The lack of humidity causes excessive electromagnetic discharges on the environment.
 This combination of abstract things together in an infinite space, for an infinite time also, eventually generating a mutant of this energy, (This is very common in nature) that gave rise to a spark, which in turn initiated a super strong implosionelectromagnetic (gamma), transforming energy into matter (M = E / C ²). These discharges once started, have not ceased. Happen today and forever. It was as if the matter were formed opposite energy, attracting the discharges of gamma rays, as the planet earth attracts the rays formed in atmospheric clouds and giving the impression that they came out of nowhere. Thus began the rise to the matter that filled the entire universe. This is still happening today and forever.Only these discharges have become increasingly intermittent, the extent that after a discharge, it formed a thin area of ​​energy that needed some time to regroup (I Guess).
 Therefore, the universe was born from a spark that turned into a mega electromagnetic implosion (M = E / C ²). It created a ball of plasma that has grown steadily and now has reached a huge size.Today such discharges, which were continuous (not shown further) is transformed into a pulse interval of a second range as lightning strikes. There are approximately 30 million discharges per year. The universe would be like a star, forming various materials inside. It would also like a fractal (a copy of a galaxy). Its interior is cooled in the periphery and the plasma was maintained by ESD (gamma rays) and is now seen as the background radiation or echo of the big bang (see satellite photo provided by WMPA). Inside the micro particles were newly formed by the coalescing force of gravity, forming mainly gases such as hydrogen that led the star, which in turn led to clusters of stars, which became quasars and galaxies finally, characterizing the entropy of the universe and justifying all existing matter and its thermal balance.
To say that the quantum vacuum is capable of generating material is pure Fantazia. The quantum vacuum has no power or to light a LED.
Nothing prevents there are other worlds like ours, or even a multiverse (would be a continued upward, the system of orbits).
In February 2007, I started this job that has undergone modifications to the current condition.The blog was launched in November 2009, suffered damage in March 2010 and was recovered.
Phrases from Einstein: "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, much knowledge, too."
Both Einstein may have been the victim of too much knowledge as I by little.
This report is far from perfect, but it is a reminder of the need to think differently and to invite people to improve it. To avoid that this blog becomes mileage, I get comments through my email: acarvalhal@oi.com.br.
I need opinions to discuss them and try to improve this blog, as I have done so far alone or discard it altogether. The intention is to make a Brazilian version, if possible, of the early universe (something we have not yet). If your review is approved or only mentioned here as a curiosity to be evaluated in the future, your name may be cited, if you authorize. As I have nothing to lose (I'm retired) I can expose without fear.
Schopenhauer said: "All truth passes through three stages:
At first, it is ridiculed.
In the second, is rejected with violence.
In the third, is accepted as evident by itself. "
This phrase is comforting and reassuring.
My phrase (I think): There are two very important things in nature:
 The universe and the human race. What would be one without the other? Absoltamente nothing. The most important thing is to manage the conservation of the human race, since the universe is indomitable.
After reading this blog, with a head full of news, it is necessary to re-read to understand the richness of detail and make a judgment quieter.
Posted by Alberto Campos Carvalhal - Tuesday, November 10, 2009.
After writing my blog, I was told by a physicist who read it and told me about the blog: WWW.bigbangneverhappened.org. I was very happy because he would have found another author who had the same idea and I now quote a passage from this blog, Eric J. Lerner.
 "Big Bang Never Happened"
In 1991, Never my book, the Big Bang happened (Vintage) tests, which showed the Big Bang theory was contradicted by observations and that another approach, plasma cosmology, that the hypothesis of a universe without beginning or end, much better explained what we know of the cosmos. The book sparked considerable debate. Since then, the observations have merely confirmed these conclusions, although the Big Bang remains by far the most accepted theory of cosmology.

This site provides an update on the evidence and debate about the Big Bang, including the last technical review and a response to a critical mass circulation, as well as a list of technical literature, a report on a recent workshop and links to other sitesrelevant, including one that described my own work on fusion energy, which is closely related to my work in cosmology.

What is the evidence against the Big Bang?

Abundances of light elements provide contradictory densities
The Big Bang theory predicts that the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. However, the density forecasts made based on the abundance of deuterium and lithium-7-4 helium are incompatible with each other, and these estimates are worsened with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion.

Large-scale voids are too old
The Big Bang theory predicts that no object in the universe can be older than the Big Bang. However, the holes observed in large scale galaxies distortion may not have been formed at the time since the big bang without resulting in the current galaxies speeds much higher than observed. Given the observed velocities, these gaps must be at least 70 billion years to form five times since the theory of time since the Big Bang.

Surface brightness is constant
One of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory is that ordinary geometry does not work over long distances. In the space around us on earth in the solar system and galaxy (non-expansion of space), as objects move away, they become smaller. Since the distance is correlated with redshift, the product size and angular red shift, QZ is constant. Similarly, the brightness of the surface of objects, brightness per unit area in the sky, as measured photons per second, is a constant with increasing distance of similar objects.

In contrast, expanding the universe of big bang provides that the surface luster, as defined above, decreases as (z +1) -3. More distant objects, should actually appear larger. But observations show that in fact the surface brightness of galaxies to a redshift of 6 is exactly constant, as predicted by an expanding universe and not in flagrant contradiction with the Big Bang. Efforts to explain this difference by evolution - galaxies initials are different from those today - lead to predictions of galaxies are incredibly bright and dense. "

Other hypothetical entities - Dark Matter and Energy, Inflation
The Big Bang theory requires three hypothetical entities - the field of inflation, non-baryonic matter (dark) and dark energy field to overcome gross contradictions of theory and observation. However, no evidence has confirmed the existence of any of these three hypothetical entities. In fact, there have been many laboratory experiments in the last 23 years that have sought non-baryonic matter, all with negative results. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the Big Bang does not provide an isotropic (flat) cosmic background radiation (CBR). No non-baryonic matter, the theory's predictions for the density of matter are in self-contradiction inflation, allowing a density 20 times larger than any predicted by the abundance of light elements (which are in contradiction with each other).Without dark energy, the theory predicts a younger age of the universe than that of many stars in our galaxy.

There is no room for dark matter
While the Big Bang theory requires that there is much more dark matter than ordinary matter, discovered white dwarfs (dead stars) in the halo of our galaxy and clouds of hot plasma in the local group of galaxies show that there is enough ordinary matter to account for the observed gravitational effects, so there is no room for extra dark matter.

Without Energy Conservation
The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics - conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nowhere. Leaving aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be accepted in any other field of physics.

Alignment of the CBR with the Local Supercluster
Major components of the angular scale fluctuations (anisotropy) of the CBR are not random but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated in a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction towards the Virgo cluster and is exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament which is part of our galaxy.This observation completely contradicts the hypothesis of the Big Bang that originated away from the CBR Local Supercluster and is on a larger scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the CBR preferred direction and the direction of Virgo to be a mere accident and struggled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by advocates of Big Bang).

Evidence of plasma cosmology

The theory correctly predicts Plasma abundances of light elements
Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to estimates of the formation of a great number of star intermediate mass during the formation of galaxies. The stars produce and emit to the environment the observed values ​​of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can be produced by collisions with ambient H and He observed values ​​of D and 7Li.

The theory provides the basic plasma physics large-scale structure of universe
In the model of plasma superclusters, and galaxies clusters are formed from filaments of vortices magnetically confined plasma. The plasma cosmology approach can easily accommodate large-scale structures, and in fact strongly predicts from basic principles of physics a fractal distribution of matter with density inversely proportional to the separation distance of objects. This fractal scaling relation was confirmed by many studies on all scales of the observable universe. Naturally, since the approach plasma source in case no time for universe, the large amount of time needed to create large-scale structures did not present problems to the theory.

Plasma theory CBR provide for absorption of radio waves, which is observed
The alternative sees the plasma energy to the CBR, as provided by the radiation released by the first generations of stars in the course of producing the observed 4He. The energy is thermalized and isotropized by a tangle of dense, magnetically confined plasma filaments that pervade the intergalactic medium. Has followed precisely the spectrum of CBR using the data of better quality, defined from the COBE satellite. Since this theory hypotheses filaments to disperse the radiation more efficiently than about 100 microns, which provides that the radiation more than that from distant sources will be absorbed or scattered to be more precise, and thus will decrease more rapidly with distance from the radiation less than 100 microns. This absorption has been demonstrated by comparing a radio and infrared radiation at different distances galaxies - farthest from, the greater the effect of absorption. New observations have shown exactly the same absorption wavelength of 850 microns, as predicted by theory plasma.

The alignment of the CBR anisotropy Local Supercluster and confirms the theory of plasma CBR
If the density of the filaments absorbing follows the density of the material, as assumed by this theory, then the extent of absorption should be increased locally in the direction along the axis of Supercluster (approximately cylindrical) place and less perpendicular to this axis, where less high-density area is located. This in turn means that the concentration of filaments out of Supercluster place, which increases slightly CBR power will be obscured in the direction along the axis supercluster obscured and less at right angles to this axis, as noted.

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário