

### Clacker Cosmos

### An Antipodean Analysis of Astro-boffins and Astronomy

### By Robert G Stitt

Distributed by Smashwords

Copyright 2016 Robert G Stitt

License Notes

Thank you for downloading this ebook. This book remains the copyrighted property of the author. Thanks for your support.

Table of Contents

Introduction

1. Dinosaur Extinction- How Not to construct a scientific theory

2. Pangaea Theory- How Not to construct a scientific theory part 2

3. Galileo and Einstein- Inertia

4. Big Bang Theory an Examination

5. Solar System- The Earth and the Moon

Connect with the author

**Introduction**

An analysis of anything requires the breaking down of the complex in order to understand it better.

Antipodean literally means having the feet opposite- it describes people in the Southern Hemisphere who are, to Europeans, upside down but still walking with their feet on the ground. I will be taking an upside down approach to Astro-boffins and Astronomy as a means of perhaps discovering something new. By upside down I mean assuming some assumptions are wrong.

Clacker is Australian slang for Cloaca.

This book has many illustrations which should help.

It might seem unnecessary to try to look at the Cosmos afresh: the Universe is made of Atoms, the four fundamental forces of nature (Gravity, Electromagnetism, Strong and Weak Nuclear) are well measured and observed, the Universe is expanding, the Universe is 90% Hydrogen- the lightest element, mass and energy have equivalence. These are givens and any alternative theory would have adhere to all the above.

The two theories that are the foundation stones of modern cosmology are: nebular hypothesis from 1734 (Swedenborg) and the big bang theory from 1927 (LeMaitre). Nebular hypothesis doesn't work for at least one reason and TBBT doesn't work for at least two reasons. But even if these theories worked well they'd only be possibilities not definites. The Laws of Physics do not preclude alternative theories.

Energy and Mass have equivalence at the subatomic level, this does not mean that there HAD TO be a big bang event - the Cosmos could be much more interesting than that.

Also advances in atomic theory- the Higgs Boson, the fact that moons can have quakes, plumes and atmospheres and many discoveries over the last thirty years question nebular hypothesis and the big bang theory and suggest something much more logical.

The measurements of the cosmos deserve a reappraisal of ALL we know or think we know.

Nebular hypothesis has never worked (James Clerk Maxwell) and the big bang theory amongst other things requires inflation to work. Huge mathematical fixes suggest we might be looking at everything the wrong way, we are measuring the Universe better and better but what all that adds up to might be entirely different from what we assume we know right now. We should accept that possibly there could be problems with these two theories and do a very fair thing- make a fresh investigation without baggage or prejudice, it's that simple.

My remit was to investigate poor assumptions and prejudices in cosmology and let the cosmos tell its own story. Please scrutinise any direction I take or measurements I use; data/measurements/evidence peer reviewed and widely available.

I imagine Albert Einstein was thinking of discovery when he said:-

**Chapter 1**

Dinosaur Extinction- How Not to construct a scientific theory

The first problem with any theory is how scientists or anyone constructs the theory in the first place. They have to make inferences from facts; if you have all the facts then the theory should be good, if you only have some of the facts poor inferences can be made leading to poor theories. This is a constant danger because how can anyone know they are in possession of all the facts. Also, in science, the discovery of new facts and new interpretations of old facts is an ongoing and never ending process.

My advice: Don't infer too early look for more facts.

Dinosaur extinction theory:

I read a well written article on the net titled "What really killed the Dinosaurs" by Alan Woods, it is an extract from his book "Reason in Revolt" in which he examines how we reason and the pitfalls we can fall into if we choose the Formalistic method: having a theory and finding facts to fit it rather than the Dialectical method, letting the measurements suggest a theory or a direction of thought.

I will summarise some of its main points in order to show the weaknesses in academia on this subject.

The theory:

Sixty five million years ago a huge meteor hit the Earth.

The impact caused a worldwide fire.

Dust blocked out the Sun causing freezing temperatures.

These conditions caused the Dinosaurs to become extinct.

Objections from the article above:

1. Freezing temperatures would have killed off amphibians; frogs, toads etc. Amphibians were around before 65 million years ago and survive till present day. Therefore we can rule out a worldwide nuclear winter at that time or anytime since.

2. The evidence for a worldwide fire is weak, practically non existent. Claire Belcher, a researcher at Royal Holloway, University of London, searched eight KT boundary sites in the Americas (the KT boundary is a layer of rock formed sixty five million years ago and can be found all over the world) she found no charcoal, which would be evidence of burning, but did find plenty non-charred plant material. This evidence is consistent with NO WORLD-WIDE FIRE at all.

3. The meteor strike happened at the wrong time. There is evidence of a large meteor strike; the crater it left behind known as the Chicxulub crater, it is 180km wide in Mexico on the Yucatan peninsula. Jan Smit of Amsterdam University looked for evidence to back his impact theory. He found spherules- round rock condensed from a vapour cloud created by an impact (possibly). Then there were huge amounts of sandstone then limestone, and then there was a layer of Iridium created from an Asteroid (possibly). The layers of sandstone and limestone are a problem because these are sedimentary rocks that would take 300,000 years to form. The Iridium layer coincides with the depletion of Dinosaurs (according to Smit) so the Chicxulub impact is 300,000 years too early to wipe out the Dinosaurs. This is a bit like an archaeologist saying "I found the weapon that killed Abraham Lincoln" and producing an AK-47 from the twentieth century. Smits explanation for the sandstone was that it was formed in two days by a giant Tsunami. This is clutching at straws and is in no way scientific. It is a habitual error of the formalistic method to make evidence "fit" the theory. Sedimentary rock is sedimentary rock.

Please see picture 1, illustrating this.

Picture 1

My Objections- further to the objections above:

The Dinosaurs didn't become extinct- This is a pretty major blow to the theory. There are 8 000 species of bird in existence today which are all descendants of the Dinosaurs. Further the families of species classified as Dinosaurs took 1 million years to not exist/become something else i.e. Birds. Also we should remember there will always be debate and revision in the study of evolutionary paths.

There are also around 10 000 species of mammals which have descended from the mammals which existed 65 million years ago. The mammals of 65 million years ago don't exist today either; no one believes Mammals are extinct. The truth is there were many varied mammals species 65 million years ago and many varied dinosaur species and many varied fish species and many varied reptile species etc.

The evolutionary change from species of Dinosaurs to species of birds might be explained if we look at the raw data. The first thing that comes to notice is loss of habitat. Grasses became widespread towards the end of the Cretaceous period, which was 66 million years ago. Old habitats will shrink as these new habitats or grasslands spread. If their habitat is shrinking the numbers, diversity and size of Dinosaurs will also have cause to shrink.

Also grasses provide a ready food supply for mammals; grasslands would enable small sized mammals to multiply rapidly. A pregnant mouse today will give birth after twenty days and the babies can reproduce four to six weeks after that. Swarms of millions of mice can occur if they have a ready food supply, like happens on grain farms in Australia quite regularly. Similar rapid population explosions due to abundant food supply would put pressure on Dinosaurs.

Mammals will also eat eggs- Dinosaur eggs on the ground are an obvious food source for mammals. All this is pressure on the Dinosaurs. Loss of habitat detrimental to Dinosaurs, growing habitats good for Mammals, Eggs on the ground bad for Dinosaurs (vulnerable) good for Mammals (food supply).

If we extrapolate forwards Large Dinosaurs have to die out first due to shrinking habitat. Mammals will obviously get larger over time with increasing habitats. Today one or two rats, pigs, dogs or cats can wipe out an island where birds nest on the ground, this illustrates the environmental pressure dinosaurs had to face. So the habitat for Dinosaurs shrinks down to zero really because in this new Grass world Dinosaurs can only survive if they get their eggs and themselves off the ground. To survive Bird ancestors had to nest in trees or on higher ground and the feathered forelimbs of smaller creatures naturally produce lift when they flap (possibly; with evolutionary adaption). This would ultimately lead to species of Dinosaur/Bird that could fly. A simple model where grasslands favour mammals would cause larger Dinosaurs to die out, only smaller dinosaurs that can nest somewhere safe and produce some amount of lift when running up a tree or cliff face (eventually flying) will survive. This would be consistent with what happened to the dinosaurs.

The evidence suggests dinosaurs were forced to take flight by onslaughts of nasty little egg munching mammals that got bigger and badder over time- this continues to the present day- no great mystery. It is also a two way street, some birds still prey on mammals as well as the other way round. But, for the most part, Mammals have won the territorial war, Birds nest in trees after all.

Please see picture 2, illustrating this.

Picture 2

If an eminent scientist suggests the Dinosaurs were wiped out by a meteor, others may like the idea and try to find evidence to support it. This is an academic process not a scientific one. This causes bad theories to be considered water-tight as one: the theories have been proposed by a well respected scientist and two: any problems are rectified by more scientists giving scientifically possible explanations for eliminating anything that doesn't add up. In other words if your peers share your prejudices then a peer review will be no review at all, The Big Bang Theory and dinosaur extinction share this heritage. If anyone disagrees the response goes something like this.

Meteors do strike the Earth. (Not even large) meteors could wipe out a city. A meteor could cause a worldwide fire if large enough. A worldwide fire would cause a nuclear winter. A nuclear winter would be very deadly. (In case you are unfamiliar with the term nuclear winter it describes when so much smoke and debris enter the atmosphere that the Sun is blocked out causing continuous winter/cold. This would happen if there was a nuclear war between superpowers). It's very probable a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs. This is the best guess scientists have made after studying the evidence.

Well scientists might be wrong in this case.

If you've never thought about it a meteor killing off the dinosaurs seems plausible. As the theory is constantly reinforced in the media and general culture it has high acceptance and very little criticism.

The meteor extinction theory is from the 1960's; it might have struck a chord with the "cold war-space age-generation" living with the threat of nuclear oblivion. It is also a continuation of Catastrophism. Catastrophism was a popular theory/line of thought back in the 19th century many scientists have been looking for a catastrophe to wipe out Dinosaurs ever since- the catastrophe being a meteor from outer space. Things coming from outer space to solve your problems are the default position for lazy thinkers, in my humble opinion; it is a continuation of an old-fashioned way of thinking, where we blame the gods in the sky for any and every natural disaster.

I would argue a serious reappraisal of this theory is long overdue (or ignore it completely as it is very improbable); the theory is not logical.

As of 1st of August 2014 there were two academic studies about Dinosaurs this week. Edinburgh University had boffins going on about how the meteor that killed the Dinosaurs happened at just the right time- Other boffins commented that they weren't mightily convinced and a second study, led by Mike Lee from the University of Adelaide, about how dinosaurs got smaller and smaller over 50 million years eventually becoming Birds, which is similar to what I'm proposing. I haven't read the report so do not know if it mentions mammals eating their eggs or the emergence of grass, but it's possible. It is funny how these two theories can co-exist in the academic world; it's a bit like believing in Adam and Eve and the theory of evolution, by natural selection at the same time.

So that's the Dinosaurs (and my attempt to persuade that boffins might be wrong about something and therefore could be wrong about many things). We should all accept that theories are theories and are always in danger of being overturned; it is always a possibility that a theory is wrong.

For now, I will briefly look at The Big Bang Theory and Nebular Hypotheses but just an overview not enough to bore you tedious. I will then go on to the Cosmos and its measurements.

You might think theorists have mulled over all the relevant facts over a long period of time and came up with an excellent theory that really adds up. My problem with TBBT is that it doesn't add up.

It needs an enormous amount of energy in the first place- to create all the atoms of the cosmos.

It needs another enormous amount (and continuous supply) of energy to continuously expand it.

If the Universe needs energy continuously, it alone must be creating energy continuously. But we can keep this little conjecture at the back of our minds for now, suffice to say- if it is creating energy it MIGHT(in fact has to) be creating mass.

There could be dozens of scientifically possible theories. I am going to leave my full criticisms of the BB theory till later.

For now I want to illustrate, quickly, the shortcomings of nebular hypothesis. The Big Bang Theory relies on this hypothesis; it basically states that stars planets and galaxies were formed out of dust clouds.

I will argue that nebular hypothesis is very poor, as boffins have since its inception 282 years ago. This hypothesis is the bedrock of how Astro-boffins see the Cosmos. I will then go on to illustrate a few points about the Solar System and Milky Way that may offer clues as to the true nature of the Cosmos.

Nebular Hypothesis was proposed by Emanuel Swedenborg in 1734 for the origin of the solar system; scientists expanded this hypothesis for all stars and planets later.

Anyway, this hypothesis states that stars and planets came about from clouds of dust made up of material that stars and planets are made of. This seems feasible, but it is a circular argument. Circular arguments don't go anywhere; they are in effect just a restatement of the question. You could also suggest that a pair of trousers came about from a cloud of trouser molecules or a tree from a cloud of sawdust; scientifically possible but a non explanation. As stars are made of mostly Hydrogen and you do get clouds of Hydrogen in outer space it seems feasible a star might arise from a Hydrogen cloud but this is in no way conclusive. No-one would argue that sawdust exists therefore trees can only originate when a sawdust cloud collapses under just the right conditions!

Nebular Hypothesis has many problems. Here's a host of them as listed by Wikipedia (please note Wikipedia pages subject to change over time, quotes used for illustrating arguments only). I will summarise these problems immediately following the quote.

Problems and criticism

The physics of accretion disks encounters some problems.[16] The most important one is how the material, which is accreted by the proto-star, loses its angular momentum. One possible explanation suggested by Hannes Alfvén was that angular momentum was shed by the solar wind during its T Tauri phase. The momentum is probably transported to the outer parts of the disk, but the precise mechanism of this transport is not well understood. Another possible process for shedding angular momentum is magnetic braking, where the spin of the star is transferred into the surrounding disk via that star's magnetic field.[17] The process or processes responsible for the disappearance of the disks are also poorly known.[18][19]

The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the Nebular Disk Model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery. This mechanism appears to be the key to the question as to why some stars have planets, while others have nothing around them, not even dust belts.[20]

The formation of giant planets is another unsolved problem. Current theories are unable to explain how their cores can form fast enough to accumulate significant amounts of gas from the quickly disappearing protoplanetary disk.[14][21] The mean lifetime of the disks, which are less than 107 years, appears to be shorter than the time necessary for the core formation.[11]

Another problem of giant planet formation is their migration. Some calculations show that interaction with the disk can cause rapid inward migration, which, if not stopped, results in the planet reaching the "central regions still as a sub-Jovian object."[22]

A major critique came during the 19th century from James Clerk Maxwell who maintained that different rotation between the inner and outer parts of a ring could not allow condensation of material.[23] It was also rejected by astronomer Sir David Brewster who stated that "those who believe in the Nebular Theory consider it as certain that our Earth derived its solid matter and its atmosphere from a ring thrown from the Solar atmosphere, which afterwards contracted into a solid terraqueous sphere, from which the Moon was thrown off by the same process." He argued that under such view, "the Moon must necessarily have carried off water and air from the watery and aerial parts of the Earth and must have an atmosphere."[24] Brewster claimed that Sir Isaac Newton's religious beliefs had previously considered nebular ideas as tending to atheism, and quoted him saying that "the growth of new systems out of old ones, without the mediation of a Divine power, seemed to him apparently absurd."[25]

Let me summarise Wikipedia's main points.

1. Why would a proto-star lose angular momentum?

2. Why would the accretion disks disappear?

3. How do 1cm sized particles coalesce into 1km sized planetesimals?

4. How could cores of gas giants form fast enough to capture huge amounts of gas?

5. What stops inward migration of gas giants?

6. Different rotation speeds of inner and outer parts of ring/disk would NOT allow condensation of material- Maxwell

7. I'll leave out Brewster and Newton because the Earth and moon require special consideration.

That's all I'm going to say about Nebular hypothesis for now, like the Big Bang Theory I will sink my teeth into it a little later.

For now, I need you, the reader, to be familiar with the Solar System so have drawn some illustrations to help you visualise it. Please look at picture 3; Solar System, masses and distances.

Picture 3

The Sun is bright yellow with a smiley face and the Planets look a bit like pool balls with signposts hammered into them showing the distances in AU (Astronomical Units) to the Sun. There is also a box showing that 1 AU equals 149 597 871 kilometres. Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun, has a white dot with 3.3 written on it. To the side is x 10^23Kg. This means the mass of Mercury is 3.3 x 10^23Kg, 10^23 means a one with twenty three zeroes after it. So mass of Mercury is 330 000 000 000 000 000 000 000Kg. The remaining Planets masses are similarly indicated.

The next picture, picture 4, has a man in a white coat holding aloft a mouse, lowering it into his mouth. The title is "My Vet Eats Mice Just Simply Uncooked Not Poached". The initials in capitals are also the initials of the names of the Planets- If you speak the phrase out loud (or internally), My Vet Eats Mice... while writing down the initials M...V...E...M...vertically, you can then go back and fill in the planets names quite easily.. The planets are listed on the right of the page in order, closest to the Sun first. One slight problem, there are 2 Ms, the first planet is Mercury, the fourth is Mars. So " Mercury- Venus- Earth- Mars- Jupiter- Saturn- Uranus- Neptune- Pluto. You might find this useful for remembering the order of the Planets (or not).

Picture 4

The next picture, picture 5, is again of the Solar System like picture 3 but more to scale. The sizes of the Sun, Planets and our Moon are to scale 1 to 10 billion (original drawing on A4 paper), but the distances are represented by horizontal lines, I didn't draw a 591 metre line out to the tiny 0.277mm wide Pluto, but those are the distances at this scale. You could lay out this representation of the Solar System in your garden, a kid's small football for the Sun, a marble for Jupiter and smaller stuff like pinheads for the smaller planets. But you'd soon be out on the street though and as I said Pluto would be 591 metres from the Sun/football and be only a quarter of a millimetre wide. The Earth 15 metres from football and pinhead sized Jupiter 78 metres and marble sized.

Picture 5

I hope these three pictures help as a reference for the masses, distances, sizes and order of the planets of the Solar System. If not here is a table with all the relevant data.

Table 1: Planet masses, sizes and distances.

Now, I need you, the reader, to know a bit about Galileo, the father of modern science.

On the 7th of January 1610 Galileo Galilei viewed through his telescope 3 stars lying in a line through the equatorial plane of the Planet Jupiter. On subsequent nights he noticed these stars had moved. He realised these were moons circling/orbiting Jupiter. This was the most important cosmological discovery ever (arguably). It proved Copernicus's observations that there was no one fixed centre of the Universe and that by extension the Planets were circling/orbiting the Sun. The Earth would no longer be considered the centre of the Universe by anyone truly interested in cosmology. (The Geocentric model was eventually overturned by Kepler, with stellar parallax and elliptical orbits but you can look into that at your leisure). Galileo also found a fourth moon on the 13th of January 1610.

Jupiter and these 4 large moons- sometimes called the Jovian moons- were like a mini solar system as they were orbiting in the equatorial plane of Jupiter, the planets are orbiting in the equatorial plane of the Sun.

If we scale up Jupiter's mass by 1047 it now equals the Suns mass and similarly scaling up the Jovian moons by 1047 makes them nearly as massive as the Gas Giants. The Gas Giants are the 4 most massive planets of the solar system- Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. See picture 6 - Jupiter and Moons, scaling up the mass.

Picture 6

The Jovian moons scaled up by 1047 gives some interesting results. Europa now has a mass of 5.03 x 10^25Kg which is 58% of Uranus, the least massive Gas Giant. Io is more massive than Uranus at 9.35 x 10^25Kg. Ganymede and Callisto have masses of 1.55 x 10^26Kg and 1.13 x 10^26Kg respectively, which makes them more massive than Uranus and Neptune but less massive than Jupiter and Saturn.

If we scale up the other Gas Giants and large moons we get further comparisons with the Solar System. Saturn System scaled up renders two of her moons bigger in mass than Earth and five smaller than Earth. Uranus System scaled up renders Miranda smaller in mass than the Earth and four moons bigger. Neptune's Triton scales up bigger in mass than Neptune but smaller than Saturn, with Proteus bigger than Mars. Please see picture 7: Scaling up the Planets

Picture 7

But so what, let's keep looking at the data here. Don't infer too early.

The parallel between the distances are also intriguing; the planets are increasingly further away from the Sun, the Jovian moons are increasingly further away from Jupiter, similarly for the other Gas Giant systems. If an object increases its distance from you at an increasing rate it is accelerating from you. A pattern emerges that anyone cannot help but see; the planets are accelerating away from the Sun, the Jovian moons are accelerating away from Jupiter. This sounds ludicrous but it does look like this.

For sanity's sake let's check if there is any hard evidence for orbit expansion anywhere in the cosmos. There is...we don't have to look far, thanks to NASA. The Apollo missions put mirrors on the moon back in the 1970's; firing a laser at these mirrors enables accurate measurement of the time taken for the laser to travel to the moon and back. The distance has been found to increase by 4cm every year.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17228-why-is-the-earth-moving-away-from-the-sun/

A quick word about why this happens- the moon drags on the Earth and Sun stealing some of their momentum, this increase in momentum punts the moon slightly further away over time. In contrast a communication satellite will get dragged by Earth's atmosphere thus fall closer to Earth over time; this is why there are booster rockets punting satellites further out and why unaided, satellites will eventually fall back to Earth. So orbits can increase if the object gains momentum or decrease if it loses momentum. See picture 8, Moon Rate.

Picture 8

Anyway let's have a bit of fun with this 4cm increase. The moon is on average 385000km from the Earth, a 1% increase would be 3850km. At a constant rate (we'll use constant for easiness) of 4cm a year would take 96.25 million years to reach 3850km the 1% increase. Check my arithmetic. So now the moon would be 388850km away from the Earth. If we assume this increase is a constant acceleration then it will increase by another 1% in another 96.25 million years; the increase this time will be 3889km and on average the increase will be 4.04cm a year. I could smooth this out using calculus but the increments are so small smoothing out is not needed. So 1.01 x 1.01= 1.0201 and 1.0201 x 385000 = 392738.5 which what I got already when I added 385000 + 3850 +3888.5 = 392738.5. Please use a calculator to check this if you want.

We can use 1.01^2 instead of 1.01 x 1.01 to represent an increase of two periods. To represent a constant increase for 70 periods, we can use 1.01^70 (and this equals 2.0067587, approximately 2). For the Moon and Earth it will take 70 periods for the distance between them to double. And 70 x 96.25 million years equals 6737.5 million years or rounded to two decimal places 6.74 billion years. If any orbit is increasing by 1% every 96.25 million years then the orbit will take 6.74 billion years to double.

Obviously it is a big assumption to infer this rate would be constant over time and constant on different scales, masses and distances and maybe there is no correlation at all with what's happening with the Moon and Earth and the rest of the cosmos. But applying the rate equally across the whole cosmos seems reasonable for conjecture even if in reality for the cosmos the rate is widely variable, in other words we can account for variation later.

As the planets seem to be accelerating away from the Sun, We can apply the moon-rate to enable us to work out the time taken for each planet to increase to any measured distance. The next planet's orbit seems like a logical distance to measure to. It's like each planet is taking a pit-stop as they race away from the Sun.

Mercury is 0.39AU to get to Venus's orbit which is 0.723AU from the Sun would take about 6 billion years. Here's how I worked that out.

0.723/0.39= 1.85 (the slash means divided by here).

1.01^n must equal 1.85, the ^ symbol means to the power of, which means multiplied by itself n times so if n = 2 then 1.01 x 1.01

1.01^62 equals 1.853 so approximately 1.85 (please check on a calculator, If you got a basic one multiply 1.01 by itself 62 times, I know maths is repulsive for some people so don't wear yourself out with any of this).

Then 62 x 96.25 million years or my (96.25my is the time taken for a 1% increase) = 5967.5 million years, which is 5.97billion years. So Mercury will reach Venus's orbit in just under 6 billion years from now.

The rest of the planets follow, with my workings just to be diligent.

Venus to Earth: 0.723AU to 1AU

1/0.723= 1.38

1.01^32= 1.375

So 32 x 96.25= 3.08 billion years

Earth to Mars: 1AU to 1.524AU

1.524/1 = 1.524

1.01^42.35 = 1.524

So 42.35 x 96.25 = 4076.19 million years

So 4.08 billion years

Mars to Jupiter: 1.524AU to 5.203AU

5.203/1.524 = 3.41

1.01^123 = 3.40

So 123 x 96.25 = 11.84 billion years

Jupiter to Saturn: 5.203AU to 9.539AU

9.539/5.203 = 1.83

1.01^61= 1.83

So 61 x 96.25 = 5.87 billion years

Saturn to Uranus: 9.539AU to 19.18AU

19.18/9.539 = 2.01

1.01^70 = 2.01

So 70 x 96.25 = 6.74 billion years

Uranus to Neptune: 19.18AU to 30.06AU

30.06/19.18 = 1.57

1.01^ 45 = 1.57

So 45 x 96.25 = 4.33 billion years

Neptune to Pluto: 30.06AU to 39.53AU

39.53/30.06 = 1.315

1.01^27 = 1.31

So 27 x 96.25 = 2.66 billion years

So increasing any planet's orbit to the next the planet's orbit by the same rate the moon-Earth orbit is increasing today would take billions of years. Mercury increasing to Pluto's orbit would take 44.7 billion years. See picture 9 - Orbit expansion, Mercury ready to go.

Picture 9

Now let's apply the rate to the Jovian system.

The Jovian moons orbit closer to Jupiter than the Planets orbit the Sun; Callisto, the farthest out, has a mean distance of 1883000km which 1.26% of 1AU so I will use kilometres instead of AU for the distances in these calculations. We should remember that doubling the distance increasing by the moon-rate will take 6.74 billion years whether we start with 10AU or 10Km or any distance.

Io to Europa: 422000km to 670900km

670900/422000 = 1.59

1.01^46.5 = 1.59

So 46.5 x 96.25 = 4.5 billion years

Europa to Ganymede: 670900km to 1070000km

1070000/670900 = 1.59

So 4.5 billion years (as well)

Ganymede to Callisto: 1070000km to 1883000km

1883/1070 = 1.76

1.01^57 = 1.76

So 57 x 96.25 = 5.5 billion years

Also I've worked this out for Saturn and her moons and Uranus and her moons, Neptune's moon Proteus would reach Triton's orbit after 10.7 billion years.

In picture 10 Time between Planets, I have plotted these results. Dividing distance by a constant acceleration rate (moon-rate) shows the regularity and evenness of these systems. The time between planets of the Solar System and the moons of the Gas Giants have a rough average of about 3 to 5 billion years.

Picture 10

Anyone looking at picture 10 with fresh eyes will say the same thing- Gas Giants seem to produce moons every 4 billion years or so. Gas giant systems are proportionally very similar to the Solar System in size mass and distribution about the Equator. If Gas Giants systems are Solar Systems in embryo then these systems must grow. For this there would have to be a mechanism for matter production and a mechanism for moon origin also. Looking at larger scales, we see further similarities. Please see picture 11: Flat Universe

Picture 11

Matter production or creation out of nothing does not seem possible it would break the laws of physics. Many theories have run into this problem. The Big Bang Theory needs an inordinate amount of energy to produce the mass energy that makes up a Universe at the Big Bang. The early rival to the Big Bang Theory, the Steady State model, also required matter production- this theory assumed matter was being produced between galaxies therefore keeping a "steady state" of matter distribution as the Universe expanded. Unfortunately no energy supply was offered that would enable this matter production (that I could tell anyway, not that I studied the theory much).

The Big Bang Theory circumvents this energy problem by having an infinite amount of energy available in a singularity 13.7 billion years ago, handy. Also Inflation which causes the expansion of the cosmos following the big bang event needs another huge/inordinate/infinite amount of energy. Where the energy needed to enable inflation comes from no-one knows or cares to offer any explanation. Lastly we need an infinite amount of energy to continuously expand the Universe. The big bang theory fails three times but this is circumvented by stating the energy must have come from somewhere! All this is before we even begin to really scrutinise the theory.

I have a suspicion how energy could be created in a changing gravitational field, but won't say just yet. Suffice to say if we have an energy supply we can have creation of matter as subatomic particles are made up of packets of energy. Matter is made of atoms which are made of baryonic particles, which as we have learned from atomic theory have energy equivalence.

If we assume we can create packets of energy it follows that we can create matter. If the creation of matter is an ongoing process, we have an entirely different universe. My suspicion that will push this line of enquiry is this- matter is produced in the interiors of moons, planets and Stars. I will go into this in the next two chapters.

The increase in distance between bodies we have used the increase in the moons orbit of 4cm a year, extrapolating to larger systems and distances would date the Solar System at 50 to 150+ billion years, Milky Way at 600+ billion years and the Virgo Supercluster at 900+ billion years. How I calculated these figures I reveal (and actually recalculate higher, then higher again) in the next two chapters. Please see picture 12 - Scaling up star systems, galaxies and Superclusters.

Picture 12

In the next chapter I come at all this from a slightly different direction, beginning with Pangaea Theory and illustrate why it's about as pants as the Dinosaur Extinction Theory.
**Chapter 2**

Pangaea Theory- How Not to Construct a scientific theory part 2

Plate Tectonics (or Pangaea theory) predict the continents were all at one time fused together creating a super Island surrounded by a super ocean. Because the continents are moving and do fit together like a jigsaw it seems reasonable to assume the continents were once one big gigantic island/continent- Pangaea- but this might not be the whole story. Some stuff we just don't know.

What we do know is that the seafloor is spreading.

Picture 14

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading#mediaviewer/File:Earth_seafloor_crust_age_1996_-_2.png

The diagram above shows a map dating the ages of the rocks of the seafloor. The red shows seafloor 0 to 50 million years old then yellow, green and blue seafloor up to 180 million years old. Continents are in grey if you are having trouble seeing the shape. This shows that in the middle of the world's ocean floors matter is being pushed out.

Here's a quote from oceanexplorer website on The Mid-Ocean Ridge

http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/05galapagos/background/mid_ocean_ridge/mid_ocean_ridge.html

What Is The Mid-Ocean Ridge?

Ken MacDonald

Professor, Marine Geophysics

University of California, Santa Barbara

The mid-ocean ridge system is the most extensive chain of mountains on earth, but more than 90% of this mountain range lies in the deep ocean. The mid-ocean ridge wraps around the globe for more than 65,000 km like the seam of a baseball. The average depth to the crest (top) of the ridge is 2500 m, but it rises above sea-level in Iceland and is more than 4000 m deep in the Cayman Trough. See picture 15- Mid-Ocean Ridge like the seam of a baseball

Picture 15- Mid-Ocean Ridge like the seam of a baseball

Here's what Wikipedia says about Seafloor Spreading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading

Seafloor spreading is a process that occurs at mid-ocean ridges, where new oceanic crust is formed through volcanic activity and then gradually moves away from the ridge. Seafloor spreading helps explain continental drift in the theory of plate tectonics. When oceanic plates diverge, tensional stress causes fractures to occur in the lithosphere. Basaltic magma rises up the fractures and cools on the ocean floor to form new sea floor. Older rocks will be found farther away from the spreading zone while younger rocks will be found nearer to the spreading zone.

What drives the seafloor spreading? (My Question)

Answer (my answer summarising the points made by Wikipedia above) - the seafloor expands from a central axis, according to Plate Tectonic Theory, which was proposed in the 1960s building on earlier theories and observations. The Lithosphere- the Earths crust and rigid upper mantle is pulled down as cooler denser seafloor sinks, the whole seafloor moves away from the centre as this sinking occurs. The magma rises therefore to fill the gap at the mid ocean ridge. This is driven by convection currents in the Asthenosphere, a plastic layer in the Earth's upper mantle just below the Lithosphere. It is presumed the expansion of seafloor less the subduction of seafloor gives a net expansion of zero. Please see picture 16.

Picture 16- Convection currents drive seafloor spreading

But this doesn't really add up for me I'd say the seafloor is spreading as the magma pushes up through the Mid Ocean Ridge the older seafloor is therefore pushed away from the centre. This might seem a subtle difference but I'd argue it is fundamental. The older seafloor will sink as it cools, it might also not sink at all but crumple, the newer rock pushing into the older rock. So the Drive I would argue comes from escaping magma pushing from the centre and NOT driven by seafloor sinking at the edges. You might be wondering how I came to this conclusion (or let's call it a conjecture at this stage) for that we have to take a look at Pangaea again.

Picture 17

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pangaea_continents.svg#metadata

If we look at the diagram above (picture 17) we can see today's continents but gathered together as Pangaea. If we look at the diagram below (picture 18) we see today's continents with their present positions.

Picture 18

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg#/media/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg

One difference between the two diagrams is that the continents (in the second diagram) are now represented as belonging to plates. The African plate is made of the continent of Africa and the seafloor surrounding it. The seafloor is young from zero to 180 million years old tops, the continent of Africa (and the other continents) are billions of years old.

To get from Pangaea (picture 17) to today's Earth (picture 18) is not straightforward. First look at picture 19 below:

Picture 19

http://www.paleoportal.org/media/boilerplate/0/11068_period_pal_map_11_image.jpg

In picture 19 there are subduction zones around the edges of this supercontinent, this seems strange to say the least; what happened to the plates the continents were on? Would there be just two plates when the world looked like this? One for the superocean- The Panthalassic Ocean and another for the supercontinent!

If the subduction zones are around the edges of the supercontinent then western Pangaea will move west as the ocean floor to the west of Pangaea is subducted- rather handy I can see why boffins want the subduction zones there. Also there are subduction zones in this inner Ocean they call Paleo-Tethys Ocean this will reduce the Ocean making Africa and India closer to China, I can see why boffins want this also. There is a map key (legend) at the bottom of the image- Sea floor spreading ridge is identified in the map key but there is no seafloor spreading in the image. The spreading will occur in the future (as far as I can tell) as Pangaea is broken up, so we will get them between Africa, South America, Antarctica, and Australia, which on the image are lumped together as Gondwana.

This super-continent idea is not consistent with the evidence- the supercontinent is on one part of the globe- this theory has subduction zones pulling these continents around the world and leaving behind seafloors that have a central ridge equidistant from all the continents. This makes no logical sense.

I would argue continents which are dated as billions of years old (radiometric dating) surrounded by ocean floors which vary from new (at the Mid Ocean Ridge) to about 180 million years old (at the edges next to the continents) is consistent with an expanding or growing Earth. It is not consistent with a super continent idea.

Further I read an article by G. Brent Dalrymple called "The Scientific Age of the Earth"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/scientific_age_earth.html

Here's a quote on what he has to say about the Earth's oldest rocks

" _All the major continents contain a core of very old rocks fringed by younger rocks. These cores, called Precambrian shields, are all that remain of the Earth's oldest crust. The rocks in these shields are mostly metamorphic, meaning they have been changed from other rocks into their present form by great heat and pressure beneath the surface; most have been through more than one metamorphism and have had very complex histories. A metamorphic event may change the apparent radiometric age of a rock. Most commonly, the event causes partial or total loss of the radiogenic daughter isotope, resulting in a reduced age. Not all metamorphisms completely erase the radiometric record of a rock's age, although many do. Thus, the radiometric ages obtained from these oldest rocks are not necessarily the age of the first event in the history of the rock. Moreover, many of the oldest dated rocks intrude still older but undatable rocks. In all cases, the measured ages provide only a minimum age for the Earth."_

In short the oldest rocks dated at 3.7 billion years old are only minimum ages these metamorphic rocks could be much much older than that. The process of newer rocks pushing against older rocks crumpling them, morphing with them (and sometimes sinking them) is ongoing. Dalrymple describes it as "intruding" older undatable rocks. This process could be many of billions of years older than the minimum age, which again would be consistent with my investigations in chapter one pointing to a 50 plus billion year old Earth.

So again there is evidence consistent with a growing Earth and not at all consistent nebular hypothesis. (I accept there may be other problems with a growing Earth but as yet evidence is consistent with this conjecture).

Now look at the circus act India has had to perform under plate tectonic theory. If we look again at picture 17 Pangaea we see India has to break from Australia, Antarctica and Africa travel northwards around 3000km (driven by subduction of the Paleo-Tethys Ocean floor) and then crash/merge with Asia, the crash creating the Himalayas. Picture 19 has India connected to Australia but very slightly which suggests there has not been much scrutiny of this theory.

I wanted a bit more detail on this process so went back to Wikipedia.

Picture 20: Pangaea to present day

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea#/media/File:Pangaea_to_acypresent.gif

So this picture shows India's movements in 5 stages. India isn't touching Australia at all, when they are part of Pangaea, in this picture so yet another inconsistency with other versions.

Let's get the description of this process from the same Wikipedia page. Here's the address for good measure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

There were three major phases in the break-up of Pangaea. The first phase began in the Early-Middle Jurassic (about 175 Ma), when Pangaea began to rift from the Tethys Ocean in the east to the Pacific in the west. The rifting that took place between North America and Africa produced multiple failed rifts. One rift resulted in a new ocean, the North Atlantic Ocean.[22]

My interjection: I love this, the creation of a new Ocean- the North Atlantic Ocean. The Pacific is already named and the Panthalassic Ocean the super huge Ocean that surrounds Pangaea doesn't get mentioned in this part of the explanation, I've no idea why. Also WHY would this supercontinent rip apart right across the middle? No explanation offered. Also their terminology is Ma for million years; I will use mya standing for million years ago.

The Atlantic Ocean did not open uniformly; rifting began in the north-central Atlantic. The South Atlantic did not open until the Cretaceous when Laurasia started to rotate clockwise and moved northward with North America to the north, and Eurasia to the south. The clockwise motion of Laurasia led much later to the closing of the Tethys Ocean.

My interjection: Laurasia is North America and Asia they don't seem to have anything to do with the South Atlantic which opens up between South America and Africa. No explanation given why Laurasia would rotate clockwise or why South America would break from Africa (I'm thinking it's the Mid Atlantic Ridge which is slap bang in the middle of the Atlantic running North to South but this wouldn't fit with the rotating Laurasia conjecture). Incidentally North and South America separate 200 mya according to the picture stay apart for all that time but now exist with a thin strip of land between them- no explanation how this came about. The thin strip of land suggests North America was pulled from South America as Central America was pulled over the Equator. The Americas did not completely sever (but this doesn't fit with Pangaea conjecture).

Meanwhile, on the other side of Africa and along the adjacent margins of east Africa, Antarctica and Madagascar, new rifts were forming that would lead to the formation of the south-western Indian Ocean that would open up in the Cretaceous.

My interjection: Again another new ocean- the south-western Indian Ocean this time, this seems to be just part of the Paleo-Tethys Ocean from earlier.

The second major phase in the break-up of Pangaea began in the Early Cretaceous (150–140 Ma), when the minor supercontinent of Gondwana separated into multiple continents (Africa, South America, India, Antarctica, and Australia). The subduction at Tethyan Trench probably caused Africa, India and Australia to move northward, causing the opening of a "South Indian Ocean".

My interjection: At least we have a partial explanation the subduction at Tethyan Trench- The Tethyan trench was in the Paleo-Tethys Ocean (yep this Ocean is still around) and Plate tectonics requires subduction for all movement glad its made an appearance in this explanation.

In the Early Cretaceous, Atlantica, today's South America and Africa, finally separated from eastern Gondwana (Antarctica, India and Australia). Then in the Middle Cretaceous, Gondwana fragmented to open up the South Atlantic Ocean as South America started to move westward away from Africa. The South Atlantic did not develop uniformly; rather, it rifted from south to north.

Picture 14 again: Age of the seafloor

My interjection: I'm putting picture 14 back into the text here. This conjecture states in the Middle Cretaceous (the cretaceous period runs from 145 mya to 66mya so the middle of the cretaceous is about 105mya) South America started to move away from Africa. And the rip occurred from South to North.

From earlier we were told the North Atlantic opened up 175mya, so 70 million years after the North Atlantic opened up the South Atlantic started to open up.

Now look at the Ocean floors in the Mid-Atlantic, it is slap bang in the middle with North and South America to the left and Europe and Africa to the right. The Age of the floor from zero to 180 my old does NOT look like it has been created separately with a gap of 70 million years. It would be consistent with the evidence that this floor has been created in one slow process over at least 180 my and if the plastic seafloor is sub-ducting when it comes up against these continents it would have taken more than 180 my.

If 50% of the floor created at the ridge is sub-ducted at the edges then the process has been going on 360 million years if 98% is being sub-ducted at the edges then the process has been going on 50 x 180 my which equals 9 billion years. Again this is consistent with a growing Earth and a planet that could be tens of billions of years old. The South Atlantic seafloor being created from 105mya onwards but having rocks up to 180 million years old is not consistent with any of the evidence or any logic.

Also, at the same time, Madagascar and India began to separate from Antarctica and moved northward, opening up the Indian Ocean. Madagascar and India separated from each other 100–90 Ma in the Late Cretaceous. India continued to move northward toward Eurasia at 15 centimeters (6 in) a year (a plate tectonic record), closing the eastern Tethys Ocean, while Madagascar stopped and became locked to the African Plate.

My interjection: This is India's big journey, notice they put in "moving 15 centimetres a year is a plate tectonic record" which is fact fitting again. India and Madagascar break from Antarctica and move northward. Madagascar stops when they want it to stop, India keeps going because they want it to and then CRASH creates the Himalayas, this is a very big ask.

New Zealand, New Caledonia and the rest of Zealandia began to separate from Australia, moving eastward toward the Pacific and opening the Coral Sea and Tasman Sea.

The third major and final phase of the break-up of Pangaea occurred in the early Cenozoic (Paleocene to Oligocene). Laurasia split when North America/Greenland (also called Laurentia) broke free from Eurasia, opening the Norwegian Sea about 60–55 Ma. The Atlantic and Indian Oceans continued to expand, closing the Tethys Ocean.

Meanwhile, Australia split from Antarctica and moved rapidly northward, just as India had done more than 40 million years before. Australia is currently on a collision course with eastern Asia. Both Australia and India are currently moving northeast at 5–6 centimeters (2–3 in) a year. Antarctica has been near or at the South Pole since the formation of Pangaea about 280 Ma. India started to collide with Asia beginning about 35 Ma, forming the Himalayan orogeny, and also finally closing the Tethys Seaway; this collision continues today. The African Plate started to change directions, from west to northwest toward Europe, and South America began to move in a northward direction, separating it from Antarctica and allowing complete oceanic circulation around Antarctica for the first time. This motion, together with decreasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, caused a rapid cooling of Antarctica and allowed glaciers to form. This glaciation eventually coalesced into the kilometers-thick ice sheets seen today.[23] Other major events took place during the Cenozoic, including the opening of the Gulf of California, the uplift of the Alps, and the opening of the Sea of Japan. The break-up of Pangaea continues today in the Red Sea Rift and East African Rift.

More of the same and not at all convincing.

Let's look at the seafloor between India, Africa, Antarctica and Australia- The seafloor left behind has been expanding from mid-ocean ridge(s) equidistant from these surrounding continents. Because of this what seems most likely is that the seafloor has pushed the continents of Australia, Antarctica, Africa and Asia apart. This process has left seafloor up to 180 million years old (furthest from these central ridges) and brand new seafloor at these ridges which continue to create new seafloor today.

Nothing of the seafloor indicates that India travelled 3000km in the last 100 million years because of a subduction zone to the North. The seafloor indicates that India was always connected to Asia and the expanding seafloor drove Australia south, Antarctica south, Africa west and north and Asia north.

This expanding seafloor would be consistent with Asia moving north over a steeper and smaller part of the globe over billions of years (I say moving but the expansion of seafloor repositions the continents to more northerly parts of a slightly bigger sphere). This would have caused it to buckle in the middle as its "wings" have moved further north than the middle. This buckling would be consistent with creating the highest mountain range on Earth, the Himalayas. The land to the south of the Himalayas would have stretched and flattened during this process. We do have flat area of land to the south of the Himalayas it is known as the Indo-Gangetic Plain. This is consistent with an expanding Earth and consistent with observation.

See pictures 21: How to build India and the Himalayas with an A4 piece of paper which replicates the stresses this part of the crust has/had to go through, and 22: India the Himalayas and seafloor spreading.

Picture 21

Picture 22: India the Himalayas and seafloor spreading

Although Plate Tectonic theory has seafloor spreading along with subduction cancelling each other out, I would argue that there is a net expansion of 1.85mm a year- A very small increase. This small increase might be the result of matter creation in the interior of the planet. Only an expanding interior could drive the movement of continents I suspect but more on this later. Also I should state again this is consistent with observation.

Seafloor crust formation varies at different places 2 to 5cm a year at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and 6 to 16cm a year at the East Pacific Rise according to Professor Ken McDonald in the article quoted from earlier.

But how do I get (why would I surmise) the figure of 1.85mm a year for net expansion? Because I derived this when using the rate I used in chapter 1; where a moon would grow 1000 fold in 50 billion years (this in turn was derived from the increase in distance measured between the Earth and the moon.

By extension the Earth and other planetary bodies will grow by this rate (or a variation) also- please remember this is a line of enquiry at this stage not something I am claiming to have proven. Which gives a small yearly increase of 1.85mm for the Earth's circumference? How I get 1.85mm from a 1000 fold increase follows:-

1.01^694 = 1000 approximately, this means I have multiplied 1.01 (1.01 represents a 1% increase) by itself 694 times. If we divide 50 billion (the estimated time taken for a body to increase by a thousand fold) by 694 we get 72 million, so a 1% increase will take 72 million years.

We will assume no change in density (for a 1% increase), but over longer time frames density may (will almost certainly) vary. With equal density an increase in mass of 1% would cause an increase in Volume of 1%. What we need now is the formula for volume of a sphere.

V=4pi x r^3, so V is proportional to r^3. If Volume has increased by 1% then radius will increase by the cube root of 1.01, which is 1.0033223, an increase of 0.33%

Circumference of a sphere, C= 2pi x r, so C is proportional to r

If the radius has increased by 0.33% then the Circumference will increase by 0.33% also.

Circumference of Earth is 40 075km, so an increase of 0.33% is 133km. And dividing 133km by 72 million (as it takes 72 million years for a 1% increase) then we get 1.85mm a year increase in the earth's Circumference.

If we assume the average seafloor formation is 10cm a year (it is somewhere between 2cm and 16cm) this 1.85mm (or 0.185cm) increase would mean that 9.815cm of the seafloor is subducting or crumpling not 10cm (or the total amount) as is currently assumed.

At this rate the Ocean floors started forming 13.35 billion years ago and at present would require 833 billion tonnes of new matter a year.

This creation of new matter would be consistent with the seafloor spreading that has been measured.

Let me show you how I got the 13.35 billion year figure again we look at volume and area of a sphere. The surface area of the Earth at present is 510 million km^2 of which 29.2% is Land and 70.8% Oceans. The Area of Land is 149 million km^2, this would have been 100% of the surface Area of a much smaller Earth without Oceans (If we work backwards).

Surface Area of a sphere = 4pi x r^2

With this formula we can work out radii (radius plural) for both spheres:

Sphere 1 (old with no Oceans): 149 000 000 ÷ 4 ÷ 3.14 then take the square root, which equals 3444 km

Sphere 2 (today's Earth): 510 000 000 ÷ 4 ÷ 3.14 then take the square root, which equals 6371 km (today's radius)

Volume of a sphere: 4/3pi x r^3 or written with mathematical symbols 4/3 p r³ (I tend not to use these symbols in case they are not consistently reproduced)

So volume for sphere 1 = 4/3 x 3.14 x (3444)^3 which equals 171 billion km³

Volume for sphere 2 = 4/3 x 3.14 x (6371)^3 which equals 1083 billion km³

So today's Earth has a volume 6.33 times the smaller Earth whose whole surface Area was 29.2% of today's surface Area. See picture 23 - If continents fit together on a smaller Earth what size was that Earth?

Picture 23: If continents fit together on a smaller Earth what size was that Earth?

As the rate of increase is 1% every 72 million years we need to find out how many periods of these 1% increases would increase the volume by 5.33 times.

1.01^n = 6.33

1.01^185.45 = 6.33

So 185.45 x 72 million = 13.3524 billion years

13.35 billion years ago the Earth had a sixth of its present day mass.

Now let me show you how I got the 833 billion tonne figure:

Mass of earth = 6 x 10^24 kg

1% of which is = 6 x 10^22 kg

Divide by 72 million years = 6 x 10^22/ 7.2 x 10^7

Which = 8.333 x 10^14 kg

Or 833 billion tonnes a year

So in the last 13.35 billion years the Earth has increased in volume by 5.33 times (6.33 less 1). The Ocean floors have been created; the Atmosphere and Oceans have been created as a result of out gassing from volcanoes- heat generation will lead to chemical reactions in the crust releasing gasses, creating ices and liquids. (There is ample evidence that moons and other terrestrial planets are also going through this process).

See picture 24

Picture 24- Growth of Planet Earth

Let me put down the vital statistics for the four different stages Earth is shown in picture 23

Earth (a)

Radius, r = 3444 km

Circumference, C = 2 p r = 21 639 km

Volume, V = 4/3 p r³ = 171 billion km³

Mass, m = 9.47 x 10^23 kg

Growth of circumference per year = 0.925 mm

After 3.24 billion years we come to-

Earth (b)

Radius, r = 4000 km

Circumference, C = 2 p r = 25 133 km

Volume, V = 4/3 p r³ = 268 billion km³

Mass, m = 1.48 x 10^24 kg

Growth of circumference per year = 1.075 mm

After 4.86 billion years we come to-

Earth (c)

Radius, r = 5000 km

Circumference, C = 2 p r = 31 416 km

Volume, V = 4/3 p r³ = 524 billion km³

Mass, m = 2.9 x 10^24 kg

Growth of circumference per year = 1.34 mm

After 5.04 billion years we come to-

Earth (d): today's Earth

Radius, r = 6371 km

Circumference, C = 2 p r = 40 030 km

Volume, V = 4/3 p r³ = 1083 billion km³

Mass, m = 6 x 10^24 kg

Growth of circumference per year = 1.85 mm

Energy Creation/production

This is the second time I've mentioned energy creation leading to matter creation. In chapter 1 I outlined how matter creation could account for the consistency across different scales, i.e. how the gas giant planets and their moons are in proportion to the sun and planets which are in proportion to the Milky Way galaxy which is in proportion to the Virgo super cluster. Now I am going on about matter creation for the Earth itself how this has created the ocean floors and has increased the volume of the Earth by 533% in 13.35 billion years. But what I haven't mentioned or guessed at is HOW this energy is created or produced. I will don't worry but first I have to mention other people who have promoted growing Earth Theories and how this line of enquiry differs from them.

S Warren Carey was a distinguished geologist 1911- 2002. He investigated Wegener's ideas on continental drift by making a model globe and model continents that could be moved around. These continents didn't fit together very well but did fit if the globe was made smaller.

This is how he came up with the idea of an expanding Earth. He did not have an explanation as to how the Earth could expand or where the energy required to push continents around would come from. He thought we should all be asking these questions.

Plate tectonics proposed no expansion of the Earth but did propose continents moved as seafloors pushed them around. The energy needed to do this has NEVER been offered (apart from residual heat which is insufficient). All that was proposed was that seafloor cools at the edges where it meets a continent, gets denser and sinks pulling the seafloor from the centre (or ridge) allowing magma to escape at the centre. Plate tectonics was widely accepted in the 1960's. S Warren Carey's ideas were discredited/forgotten.

Neal Adams kind of resurrected Carey's ideas and called it growing Earth Theory. He is a comic book artist and publisher and has made some swanky videos on YouTube. He believes the Earth grows because of pair production (where the energy comes from to enable pair production I haven't been able to derive from his videos). He also believes the seafloors do not sink or subduct at all, which means the Earth has expanded/grown from no oceans to what we have today over the last 200 million years (the line of enquiry in this chapter calculates that growth ocean floors on the Earth would have happened over 13.35 billion years, so we differ on this).

Asia buckling as it moves North creating the Himalayas is consistent with this line of enquiry and Neal Adams views. As are Continents resettling over a larger globe necessarily creating mountains. The expansion in the interior has to be the cause of Earthquakes, in my opinion, residual heat doesn't cut it.

That's enough about others lets have some more facts from the solar system that might throw a little more light on the subject.

Here's a great picture from the net- the moons and terrestrial planets of the solar system in order of size.

Picture 25: Moon sizes

http://tcaa.us/Images/Relative_satellite_sizes.jpg

This consistent pattern of forever larger bodies is fascinating. They all seem to be at different stages of very similar journeys (again the extrapolations I have been making are consistent with this). The moons were thought of as dead bodies by boffins because of nebular hypothesis. They reckoned these small bodies would lose heat quite rapidly and therefore be solid rock. In the past few decades it has been discovered that moons have inner movement (moon quakes), geysers or plumes and atmospheres (albeit tenuous or thin) all of which require energy.

Current data, I would argue, indicate that moons have inner heat and are possibly creating inner heat, possibly inner growth. This line of enquiry has already indicated that these bodies will continue to get bigger becoming terrestrial planets then Gas Giants then Dwarfs, red, brown, white and then Sun sized stars and beyond.

At this point I should introduce a model. I have highlighted measurements about the cosmos which have indicated to me at least that planetary bodies might be increasing or growing. This should be done more formally so that we can compare it with empirical data (observation and measurement). So let's start with the Solar system and gas Giant systems increasing the mass by 1% every 72 million years and the distance between Primary and satellite by 1% every 96.25 million years. See table 2: New model of the Cosmos

Table 2: New model of the Cosmos

Extrapolating forwards the Gas Giant systems are compare well with the solar system. Extrapolating backwards the solar system compares well with gas giant systems.

In the next chapter we will go further with these extrapolations and explain how energy can be continuously produced. For now we need to know one thing.

Where do moons come from?

So if we accept for conjectures sake that Gas Giants such as Jupiter produce energy and matter internally it follows that they will have super-vents that will blow periodically like volcanoes erupt on Earth.

The best way to visualise this is to look at my illustration below: picture 26 Large Spherical Bodies

Picture 26: Large Spherical bodies

Back at Wikipedia I learned this about supervolcanoes

" _A supervolcano is any volcano capable of producing a volcanic eruption with an ejecta mass greater than 10^15 kg"_

And also the Hawaii hotspot that has over millions of years created a chain of volcanoes 5,800km long. These volcanoes are of course the Hawaiian Islands that rise from the seafloor their tops sticking out of the water.

This tells us the Earth is very volcanic. My conjecture of course is that energy and matter are created in the Earth's interior and volcanoes and seafloor spreading are a natural result of that. For a Gas Giant like Jupiter a supervolcano might erupt ejecta 10^19kg (maybe greater or less) which is around the masses of many moons of the Gas Giants in our Solar System. Any eruption would have to be powerful enough for the "moon" or ejecta to escape the gravitational pull of the planet.

Jupiter is 317 times as massive as the Earth. The escape velocity at the surface of Jupiter is 59.5 km per second. This means that a projectile fired above the equator i.e. not down at the ground, will go into orbit around Jupiter if fired at a greater velocity than 59.5 km per second. For comparison the escape velocity at the surface of Planet Earth is 11.2 km per second.

It seems reasonable to suggest that eruptions on a gas giant may be thousands perhaps even millions of times as powerful as an eruption of a super volcano on Earth. Ejecta of 10^19kg would be a small percentage of Jupiter's mass, to be precise 0.000053%. Also as the escape velocity on Jupiter is only 5.3 times greater than on Earth, it is conceivable that this ejecta around 10^19kg could be thrown into orbit. Smaller amounts of ejecta could also be thrown into orbit and would thus accumulate as rings around these planets.

Also the escape velocity is always smaller at the equator than anywhere else on a spinning sphere. A smaller gravitational pull at the Equator would also lead to more volcanic activity near this line. Moons and rings orbiting around the equators of planets are consistent with this conjecture about Supervent eruptions.

The next chapter is titled Galileo and Einstein- Inertia. In it we will investigate a solution to the energy creation problem I've been mentioning.

**Chapter 3**

Galileo and Einstein- Inertia

Forces and mechanics may seem a little complex but they are derived from a very simple truth that Galileo discovered which had eluded mankind since forever, The Law of Inertia:-

An object will stay at rest or move in a straight line at a constant speed unless acted upon by a force.

Newton's laws of motion are derived from Galileo's (or Galilean) relativity as is Einstein's special relativity.

Newton's Three Laws of Motion. First Law- the law of inertia

This first Law takes a little while to sink in- You might even think it's wrong an object moving in a straight-line at a constant speed, for example a football that's been kicked along a flat piece of road, won't go on forever it will slow down and stop. This is because "friction" is acting upon it slowing it down; friction is the force decelerating it in this case. So the football would be moving in a straight line at a constant speed forever if friction was not acting upon it (slowing it down).

Picture 27: Friction slowing down a football

The Second law:

The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

An illustration of the second law and first law: When a car is moving on a flat road the force from the engine turning the crankshaft and then wheels will accelerate the car, however it reaches a constant speed as the frictional resistance of the road and air grow to equal the engines force. So no net force, so car continues forever in a straight line at a constant speed. Further pressing the accelerator pedal or changing to a higher gear and pressing the accelerator again accelerates the car, frictional resistance grows again and a new constant speed is reached. All car drivers feel this as they move up the gears to their top speed. See picture 28: A moving car- the amount of Force proportional to the amount of acceleration.

Picture 28 a moving car

The third law:

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

An example of this is the kickback from a gun when a bullet is fired.

Definitions for Laws two and three came from this site:

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/newton3laws.html

Newton derived his formula for his law of universal gravitation working from Kepler's third law on planetary motion;

The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

Written in symbols: T^2 is proportional to R^3

and Newton second law; Force equals mass times acceleration

F = m.a

He ended up with his universal law of gravitation which states:

that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses but also inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation

see picture 29 formula for Gravitation

Picture 29: formula for Gravitation

In the above formula for gravitation m1 we can call big m (M) for mass of planet and m2 we can use just little m (m) for the mass of the object. For multiplication we just use a dot not an x. so:-

F = G (M m)/ r^2

The force on the object (due to gravitation) can also be written as:-

F = m a

As this is the formula we use for an object moving in a circular path.

So combining the above two equations we get:

F = m.a = G (M m)/r^2

So m.a = G (M m)/r^2

And dividing both sides by m gives us:

a = GM/r^2

The pictures below illustrate the differing gravitational pull we feel at different places in the Solar System i.e. on the Earth, 1 000km above the Earth and on the moon.

Picture 30: Gravity on Earth

Now Gravity 1000km above the Earth

Picture 31: Gravity 1000km above the Earth

Incidentally the spaceman in picture 31 (if he is in orbit) will be moving a constant speed of 7.36km per second. See picture below:

Picture 32: Orbital speed 1000km above the Earth.

What the last 2 calculations and pictures show is that there are 2 parts to an orbit; the acceleration to the centre and the tangential speed along that path. And as I've mentioned before the orbit can expand or contract due to momentum transfer.

Now Gravity on the moon

Picture 33: Gravity on the moon

Now let's consider the changing gravitational field in the interior of a planet and on the surface of a planet.

If we are in the UK and we borrow some of Australia's gravity we could build a perpetual motion machine. A weight on a wheel could fall from top to bottom then using Australian gravity it WOULD THEN FALL UP THE WAY. This (perpetual) motion would turn the wheel indefinitely. Connecting a shaft to the wheel could turn a generator and produce perpetual electricity.

But this is impossible, there is no such thing as Australian gravity. This is true for us. Our reality on the surface of the Earth is that gravity always pulls down 90 degrees (or perpendicular) to the horizontal. But we should remember the horizontal is the surface of a sphere so it does actually bend in on itself 360 degrees, this is so gradual for us it is unnoticeable.

But it is noticeable if we are a moon, planet, or star. Because of size these objects are subjected to a gravitational field that bends in on itself by 360 degrees. This creates an interesting environment in the interiors of these bodies.

A thermal cycle is not only a cycle of heat but also of material and if matter is in a cycle where the downward pull is not perfectly perpendicular to the horizontal then the matter in the cycle is being accelerated ACROSS the horizontal (to some extent i.e. a proportion of the downward pull is displaced horizontally) therefore pushing into matter reluctant to move. This will necessarily result in frictional resistance, the movement of mass and therefore frictional heat. You might have guessed already this environment continuously creates thermal energy. Let me repeat. CONTINOUSLY CREATES THERMAL ENERGY. The golden rule of physics has been questioned. Energy can not be created or destroyed BUT in the interiors of moons planets and stars they have to produce energy because of the changing gravitational field.

Woooooh I hear your brain exclaim back up a bit, give me that again. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed in an environment where the gravitational field is 90 degrees to the horizontal. But on (or in) a sphere this horizontal bends in on itself by 360 degrees, if the sphere is large enough (with a hot fluid interior where thermal cycles exist) then matter is being accelerated into matter reluctant to move and therefore creating frictional resistance and thermal energy.

Here's a picture of this to cement in your mind what I'm trying to say. Picture 34 Internal Energy

Picture 34: Internal Energy

Let's bring in Einstein now.

To understand Einstein's Theories of Relativity I advise you visit John D Norton's webpage, Einstein for Everyone, it is truly excellent:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/index.html

He is a professor at the University of Pittsburgh and I will be quoting his work in order to give an overview of Einstein's Gravitation and other stuff.

The principle of relativity asserts:

The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference.

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_principles/index.html#Principle

The light postulate

If we have light propagating in any inertial frame, we measure its speed using the rods and clocks of that frame. We will find:

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference.

That speed is 186,000 miles per second or 300,000 kilometers per second. Because this speed crops up so often in relativity theory, it is represented by the letter "c".

From the above two principles, he calculates that moving clocks slow and rods are shrunk in the direction of their motion

We have learned that a clock moving at 99.5% the speed of light, slows by a factor of ten. It ticks once each ten seconds instead of once each second. A rod, oriented in the direction of motion, shrinks to 10% of its length. Rods perpendicular to the direction of motion are unaffected.

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_clocks_rods/index.html

But the internal cycles of matter are no where near the extreme of moving at close to the speed of light, therefore classical physics can be used instead of Einstein's special relativity or general relativity (which tries to incorporate accelerating time frames). Nothing from Einstein (I would argue) contradicts that in the interiors of planets matter is being accelerated into matter reluctant to move and is therefore generating energy.

I did try a matrix (matrices are used for Special Relativity) and found that lines representing the movement of particles (in the interior of a planet) did converge which I think shows that matter is being accelerated into matter but I couldn't be sure my workings didn't have errors (or were relevant to an accelerating time frame) so I have left them out.

The only question to be asked is: "Why haven't scientists discovered energy generation already?"

Answer 1: I am wrong and they have considered this environment sufficiently to know NO ENERGY can be produced.

Answer 2: I am right, they have possibly never thought about it reasoning it is impossible.

Answer 3: I am wrong, but energy is being produced by a quite different method. What follows would still be the moon producing cosmos that I have been measuring (discovering) in distance and time and rates of growth.

So let's get back to the Earth. If the interior is already at a thermal equilibrium for its volume then adding heat will expand the material. This would be consistent with a 65 000km crack wrapped round the Earth that continually throws out gasses and new seafloor year after year for billions of years. But more than that because of the energy needed to push apart continents is huge the fact that the Earth does this suggests that the Earth is in a healthy state when it comes to energy or energy supply. The fact that a system has done this for billions of years is consistent with an Earth that is generating energy.

A biological system gets its energy from fuel supply/food from its own environment, like plants and animals do. For the Earth the manipulation of the gravitational field induces energy production. And because there is a 60km crust capping expansion, the matter takes on new energy as sub atomic particles. This creates new atoms; new material. Therefore the Earth (and other large planetary bodies) should be considered to be a biological system.

It seems obvious now that expansion would cause cracks between continents. It seems obvious seafloor is the result of expansion. It seems obvious that adding energy to atoms creates additional sub atomic particles. It seems obvious now that matter is created, at least to me, because these are all consistent with observation.

The most abundant element in the Cosmos is Hydrogen which consists of one Atom adding energy to Hydrogen we can create the second most abundant element in the Cosmos Helium. All the elements in the periodic table can be created by adding energy to Hydrogen, in other words the creation of energy can and will produce any and all the elements that make up matter. The reason we have matter, it seems, is because we have energy production.

When we consider (using spectrography) that all the stars in the cosmos are 90% Hydrogen. It seems obvious that these objects are producing Hydrogen in fact it seems it's the reason they exist which in turn is why the Cosmos exists.

Here's what I found on the Net about the composition of stars:

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys240/lectures/elements/elements.html

In the nineteen-twenties, Cecilia Payne studied the spectra of stars, and devised a way to figure out the temperature and true chemical composition of stars. She concluded that the atmospheres of stars were

• _NOT made up of the same mix of elements as the Earth_

(My interjection: which is what boffins thought at first)

• _NOT wildly variable in composition but in fact, almost entirely hydrogen, in almost all stars_

This was so surprising that scientists ignored or rejected the idea for several years. Eventually, after further study confirmed Payne's work, the astronomical community had to concede that the stars were, in fact, very different from the Earth. They appeared to be made up of

• _90% hydrogen (by number of atoms)_

• _10% helium_

• _tiny traces of heavy elements (everything else)_

I would have thought that someone in the 1920's or since would have said there are two possibilities: Either stars are made from Hydrogen clouds floating around in space which collapse into Hydrogen balls when needed OR stars produce Hydrogen which is why the percentage of Hydrogen increases the more massive an object (star) gets. The fact that this was never suggested by anyone might help with my book sales so I shouldn't complain.

Even if my mechanism for matter creation in the cosmos is wrong there is abundant evidence of matter creation (stated and illustrated many times already). Let's make some estimates for rates of change now.

The creation of matter at a 1% increase every 72 million years would require an equivalent amount of energy. For this we can use Einstein's famous equation E = mc^2, one gram equals 89.9 terajoules of energy, this figure I got from Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence#Applicability_of_the_strict_mass.E2.80.93energy_equivalence_formula.2C_E_.3D_mc2

But you can work it out from scratch quite easily. Start with the formula E = mc^2, where E is energy, m is mass (0.001kg) and c is the speed of light (300 million metres per second) which has to be squared. Actually I googled speed of light to get a more exact figure:-

299 792 458 m/s

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=speed+of+light

So

E = mc^2

= 0.001 x (299 792 458)^2

= 0.001 x 8.98755 x 10^16

= 8.99 x 10^13Joules, for one gram

This is 89.9 times a trillion Joules (or terajoules) or in numbers 89.9 x 10^12Joules which is 8.99 x 10^13Joules.

1% of the Earth equals 6 x 10^22Kg. Divide this by 72 million to get the amount of matter per year so 6 x 10^22 over 7.2 x 10^7 equals 8.33 x 10^14Kg or 833 billion tonnes a year.

So if one gram takes 8.99 x 10^13J

Then one Kilogram takes 8.99 x 10^16J

And 833 billion tonnes of matter is 8.33 x 10^14kg multiply that by the amount of energy needed to make a Kilogram 8.99 x 10^16J equals 7.5 x 10^31J which is 75 million YJ (a Yotta or Y equals 10^24) this is a huge amount of energy.

Seconds in a year is 31,556,926 so we need 2.38YJ a second (produced by the Earth)

Kinetic energy of a moving object is equal to the WORK required to bring it from rest to that speed

Let me give you an example: an 80 kilogram mass travelling at 18 metres a second (about 65 km an hour)

Ek = 1/2 mv^2

Where:

Ek is kinetic energy

m is mass

v is velocity

And ^2 means squared here

So Ek = 1/2 x 80 x (18)^2

= 1/2 x 80 x 324

12960 Joules or 12.96 KJ of energy needed to bring the 80kg mass moving at 65km/hr to a stop.

We know the amount of Energy we are looking for 2.38 YJ so we can estimate the amount of mass moving against mass reluctant to move as a % of the Earth and therefore deduce the velocity this matter is moving at. Let's suppose 20% of the Earth is moving against matter reluctant to move (I will calculate for a smaller mass 5% and a much smaller mass 0.01%, later). So let's find out the average speed of that mass (20%) to make the energy required.

As Ek = 1/2 mv^2 then v^2 = Ek/(1/2m) or = Ek/(0.5)m

And v = SQRT (Ek/(0.5m))

Where:

Ek is kinetic energy

m is mass

and 0.5m is half the mass (in case that looks confusing)

v is velocity

and SQRT is the Square root

So the huge amount of energy needed for the Earth to create 833 billion tonnes of matter a year was 2.38 YJ a second, let's round it up to 2.4 YJ a second or 2.4 x 10^24J

20% of the Earth's mass is 0.2 x 6 x 10^24 kg which equals 1.2 x 10^24kg

so

v^2 = Ek/(0.5)m

Where:

Ek is kinetic energy

m is mass

v is velocity

so

v^2 = 2.4 x 10^24 / 0.5 x 1.2 x 10^24

So v^2 = 4 and therefore v = 2 metres per second or 7.2 Km an hour

That means if in the interior of the planet 20% of the Earth's mass is moving at a speed of 7.2 km/hr against mass reluctant to move then that will create enough Energy to produce 833 billion tonnes of matter per year, enough for the Earth to increase in mass by 1% every 72 million years and enough to increase the circumference of the Earth by 1.85mm a year.

This could all be happening in the core or outer core and would explain movements detected in these areas. If the amount of mass was smaller at 5% then it would be moving at 4metres a second or 14.4km an hour

For the other planetary bodies it works out the same speeds. 20% at 7.2 km/hr; 5% at 14.4km/hr. This would increase the mass by 1% every 72 million years.

And as I don't know what the amount of mass accelerating into mass reluctant to move is I will now calculate for the much smaller mass at 0.01% of the Earth.

The Earth is 6 x 10^24kg

1% of Earth is 6 x 10^22kg

And 0.01% of Earth is 6 x 10^20kg

Finding our velocity for this amount of mass can be derived from the same formula as before

v^2 = Ek/(0.5)m

v^2 = 2.4 x 10^24/ 0.5 x 6 x 10^20

v^2 = 0.8 x 10^4 = 8 x 10^3 = 8000

v = 89 metres per second

v = 321 Kilometres per hour

A smaller mass moving at a higher speed might be more likely than the larger masses considered previously, especially if this is happening in the core and outer core. For the other planetary bodies 0.01% moving at 321Km/hr would create enough energy to convert to mass at 1% every 72 million years also.

Now we have a model of the cosmos (or partial model) that makes sense. This model shows we should look on the cosmos, moons, planets, star systems, galaxies, and super-clusters etc. as biological systems as they are self sustaining and reproducing. Boffins look on the cosmos as dead made up of what it is made up of and using any potential fuel or energy before burning out. This seems like a very blinkered way of looking at things considering the analysis we have been doing.

The next comparison for the Sun and solar system is with other stars. Stars have classification system based on their luminosity, temperature and mass. I got a nice picture illustrating this system at www.atlasoftheuniverse.com

Picture 35: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/startype.html

Stars in the main sequence generally follow these rules: stars getter hotter and brighter (more luminous) as they increase in mass. The least massive the star the more abundant it's type.

The most abundant: Type M stars are 20% of the Sun's mass and make up 80% of stars on the main sequence they are the coolest and dullest. The least abundant: Type O stars are around 50 times the mass of the Sun and make up only 0.00001% of stars on the main sequence; they are the hottest and brightest.

Giant stars, White dwarfs and super-giant stars don't quite fit in to the main sequence; we shall come back to these later.

One point we should make is how well the main sequence stars fit in with the growing universe conjecture that the measurements have been suggesting. If moons are growing into planets then gas giants and then dwarfs (dwarfs are on the main sequence type K or M). Then the least massive would be more abundant than the next massive and so on; this is consistent with observation of main sequence stars. Also the least massive would produce the least energy so be cooler than the next massive and so on, this is consistent with observation of main sequence stars. Also the least massive would produce least energy thus emit least energy (dullest) than the next massive and so on; this is consistent with observation of main sequence stars.

From here we need to compare the Solar system with the Milky Way, which is the Galaxy the Solar system is part of. The Milky Way is estimated to have 100 to 400 billion stars. Now as our conjecture about the growing cosmos has yielded a plausible mechanism for how this happens i.e. Gas Giant planets generate energy and matter then erupt magma that goes into orbit around them which partially solidifies as a moon. As the moon has a gravitational field that bends in on itself by 360 degrees then it will generate movement and heat because of "free" acceleration of matter into matter. This generation of energy is responsible for the creation of matter which suggests the whole cosmos is a biological system that is growing. Now as we have roughly estimated already the Gas giants take about 50 billion years to grow from a moon. The period of time a Gas Giant might produce moons we can estimate as another 50 billion years, we measured this process to take 44.7 billion years for the planets of the Solar System. So the moon in question is more likely to take around 100 (maybe 150) billion years to become a Gas Giant or nascent star with a brood of moons/terrestrial planets orbiting in its equatorial plane. Now as we have nine planets and the gas giants have around four, five or six large moons, we can take 7 as a conservative approximation of what the average might be. How many times would the 7 moons have to have 7 moons that would have to have 7 moons etc in order to get near the 100 billion to 400 billion stars figure?

Well 7 to the power of 13 that's 7 x 7 thirteen times equals 97 billion and to the power of 14 equals 680 billion. So 13 to 14 generations of moons would give you that figure. Let's say 100 billion years for a moon to become a well established Primary with moon/planets then for 13 to 14 generations it would take about 1300 to 1400 billion years, let's add another 100 billion for the last lot of moons to get star sized so 1400 to 1500 billion years.

The mass of the Milky Way (from Google) is 0.8 to 1.5 x 10^12 solar masses.

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mass+of+the+milky+way

To work out the 1% increments is straightforward.

1.01^n = 0.8 to 1.5 x 10^12, find n

So

1.01^2755 = 0.8 x 10^12 and

1.01^2818 = 1.5 x 10^12

So n = 2755 to 2818 periods

Dividing the Age of the Milky Way at 1400 to 1500 billion years by these two numbers for n gives 497my, 508my, 532my, 544my, so 1% increase between every 497 to 544 million years.

This rate is about seven times slower than the earlier mass/matter growing rate (used for moons and planets in the Solar System, in chapters one and two) at 1% every 72 million years; this is because I have used the number of generations of stars as an estimation of time. The reason the rate of matter production slows might be that as objects become larger more massive and hotter they may become less efficient at turning that energy into matter; they are also emitting a lot of heat and light into space. Also the moon rates of distance and matter increase might be exaggerated as it is stealing energy and momentum from two objects the Earth and the Sun.

For distance we can examine the measurements also.

Pluto is on average 39.5AU from the Sun so we can take the Diameter of the Solar System as double that at 79AU (I accept there are other objects in orbit around the Sun that are further out but we will be conservative and use Pluto as the outer edge of the solar system as it is a natural satellite.

The Milky Way has a Diameter of 120 000 light years. Let's work out how much bigger this Diameter is. One light year is equal to 63 241.1AU so the diameter of the Milky Way in AU is 120 000 x 63241.1 which equals 7.59 x 10^9AU which is 7.59 billion AU. Divide the smaller Diameter into the larger we get 7.59 x 10^9 divided by 79 which equals 9.6 x 10^7 times which is 96 million times

From here we want to find the rate of change so let's find out for 1% increments. Using my trusty calculator again I found out that 1.01^1847 = 9.58 x 10^7, which rounded up is 96 million. If we again use the estimated age of the Milky Way as 1400 to 1500 billion years (derived from 14 generations of moons/stars) and divide by 1847 (the number of 1% increases needed to get 96 million) we get 758 million years to 812 million years for a 1% increase in distance. This is much slower than the rate derived from the moon rate (we used for the solar system) of 1% every 96.25 million years. This rate has slowed by more than seven times, the matter producing rate slowed by around seven times also. Increases in distance relied on the moon or planet dragging on its Primary gaining/stealing momentum. If the matter producing rate slows down less mass will cause less drag will which will mean less momentum transfer, so the rate of increase for distance has to slow.

The increases in the distance rate will slow for another reason: changes in direction. Moons are ejected into the equatorial planes of their Primary. This means the equatorial plane is dependent upon the axis of the Primary; these aren't necessarily perpendicular to the Sun's equatorial plane. Neptune, for instance, is spinning on an axis almost level to the Sun's equatorial plane instead of spinning closer to the norm which is around ninety degrees to it. The moons of Neptune are in the equatorial plane of Neptune their Primary, which means they have taken a ninety degree change in direction. So galaxies will spread out along the horizontal on the whole, but regular changes in direction (over generations) are inevitable.

In fact this explains why galaxies, solar systems, gas giant systems have similar proportions over different scales, like a fractal.

We should have a slightly closer look at the Sun now. If the matter producing rate has slowed somewhat lets apply that rate (1% every 497 million years) to the Sun and see what it tells us.

Mass of Sun = 1.9 x 10^30kg

1% of which is = 1.9 x 10^28kg

Growth or matter produced per year is 1% over 497 million years. So 1.9 x 10^28 / 4.97 x 10^8

Which equals 3.88 x 10^19kg a year

The energy equivalent we can also find out as one gram of mass equals 89.9 terajoules of energy or 8.99 x 10^13Joules. One Kilogram is 8.99 x 10^16Joules.

So yearly Growth times energy equivalent equals 3.88 x 10^19 times 8.99 x 10^16 which equals 3.49 x 10^36Joules or 3.49 trillion YJ (one septillion Joules = Yottajoule= YJ= 10^24J)

Seconds in a year is 31,556,926 so we need 1.11 x 10^29Joules a second or 111 000YJ a second.

The Thermal output of the Sun is 380YJ per second; I found this out on NASA's Cosmicopia site:

About how much power does the Sun produce?

The Sun's output is 3.8 x 1033 ergs/second

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html#power

one erg/second is equal to 10^-7Joules. So 3.8 x 10^33ergs/seconds equals 3.8 x 10^26Joules/second or 380YJ per second.

If the Sun is producing 111 380YJ a second in total, then 99.66% (111 000YJ/s) is being turned into matter and 0.34% (380YJ/s) is being emitted as heat and light. This is consistent with observation and consistent with the conjecture that the Milky Way Galaxy is around 1400 billion years old and made up of 14 generations of moon/planet producing solar systems.

The Super massive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way is 4.3 million solar masses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*

This black hole will be old like the Milky Way it is a part of. If we extrapolate backwards the mass of the Milky Way was once the mass of the Sun. The mass of this black hole extrapolating back at the same rate 1% every 497my to 544my reduces to between 5.74 x 10^24kg and 1.075 x 10^25kg, the mass of the Earth falls within these parameters at 6.0 x 10^24kg. This black hole 1400 billion years ago had the mass of a planet, so was most probably a planet back then.

Let's have a look at the Virgo Super-cluster now.

In this super cluster there are 100 galaxy groups which could have as many as 50+ galaxies for each group and one galaxy can have 100 to 400 billion stars. Multiplying this altogether we get 0.5 to 2 million billion stars (0.5 to 2 x 10^15 stars). If we use the seven moon average again then we can work out how many generations of stars would generate this. 7^17 equals 0.23 x 10^15 and 7^18 equals 1.6 x 10^15 which is 1.6 million billion stars, so it's around 17 to 18 generations. As a generation for a moon to become a nascent star is about 100 billion years 17 to 18 generations would take 1800 billion years to 1900 billion years (estimated age of Virgo Super cluster under our theory).

Comparing with the Milky Way, we need another 400 to 500 billion years for the extra 4 to 5 generations. Let's compare distances to see if there is any correlation.

100 000 light years for the Milky Way compared to 110 Million Light years for the Virgo super-cluster is an increase of 1100. 1.01^704 equals 1102, so 704 increases of 1% will give us 1102; the increase in diameter size going from Solar System to Virgo Super cluster. This growth rate from galaxy to Super-cluster is 400 to 500 billion years. 400 billion divided by 704 means that a 1% increase in distance will take 568 million years. 500 billion divided by 704 gives a 1% increase in distance every 710 million years. Proportionally quicker than 1% every 758 to 812 million years the previous estimate; Overall quite a close correlation.

Comparing the Sun with the mass of the Virgo Super Cluster I got with help of Google:-

Mass of Virgo Super Cluster equals 1 x 10^15 solar masses.

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=mass+of+the+virgo+super+cluster

To find the rate of 1% increases

1.01^n = 1 x 10^15, find n

1.01^3472 = 1.0 x 10^15, n equals 3472

Dividing 17 to 18 generation super cluster age estimate will give us the length of time for each 1% increase. So

1800 billion years divided by 3472 gives 518 million years. And 1900 billion years gives 547 million years.

All these estimations could be out by multiples, due to many unknowns. Having said that the correlations are surprisingly good and the coherence of the theory seems to stand up.

Extrapolating backwards 1800 billion years when the super cluster was the size and mass of the Sun, the Super massive black hole would then have had a mass of 3.4 x 10^25kg. Five times the mass of the Earth, a large planet, another favourable correlation.

There could be wide variation with these rates on different scales etc. but using our averages this is consistent with observation AND consistent with a growing universe theory where larger and larger structures take longer and longer time frames to evolve and grow. For instance we may be part of a Solar System somewhere around the 150 billion year old Mark but that Solar System is part of a much older galaxy the Milky Way at 1400 billion years old and there are older (larger) systems- Super clusters- in our visible Universe which could be 1900 billion years old plus. Far from predicting an age for the cosmos we should consider that the Age of the Cosmos is unknowable.

This is much more logical than a 13.7 billion year old Boffin friendly Universe where all systems, from solar systems to Giant Super-clusters are very little different in age and all will die out soon (in so many billion years, most massive first) as they run out of fuel. Really? Why do they think that again?

One final comparison: nearby stars within 12.5 light years.

There are 33 stars within 12.5 light years of the Solar System. We can compare this with the Solar System to look for similarities.

A sphere with a radius of 12.5 light years has a diameter of 25 light years and within that sphere there are 33 stars. The Solar system out to Pluto is within a sphere with a Diameter of 79AU. We can work out how many times the Solar System diameter goes into this 25 light year diameter.

As one light year equals 63241AU, then 25 light years equals:-

25 x 63241= 1 581 025 AU

Dividing this by 79 AU equals:-

20 013 times

To find out how many 1% increments would be needed to get 20013 is straightforward.

1.01^n= 20013, find n?

1.01^995.4 = 20021 which is close enough

So 995.4 increments of 1%. If the nearby stars represent 2 generations of moon production we could estimate that this is 200 to 300 billion years old. And 200 to 300 billion divided by 994.5 = 201 to 301 million years for each 1% increase. Slower than distance (moon) rate earlier 1% every 96.25 million years but faster than Solar System to Milky Way comparison which estimated a 1% increase every 758 million years. This is consistent with rates slowing as we increase in scale.

Comparison of masses: I am going to suppose the matter production rate has slowed by just more than half at 1% every 150 million years. That means for a 200 billion to 300 billion year time frame we can calculate how many of those 1% increases there was. And extrapolate forwards some Solar System moons/planet masses.

200 billion years divided by 150 million years equals 1333.

This means we have had 1333 one per cent increases.

1.01^1333 = 575 958 which is an increase in mass of this magnitude. So if we are comparing with a typical dwarf of 0.2 solar masses then,

0.2 x 2 x 10^30kg which is 4 x 10^29kg divided by the compounded 1% increases of 575 958 gives you 6.94 x 10^23kg, Which means that 200 billion years ago a 0.2 solar mass dwarf star would have been a terrestrial planet with a mass of 6.94 x 10^23kg (this compares well with Mars at 6.42 x 10^23kg). A dwarf star of 0.1 solar masses 200 billion years ago would be 3.47 x 10^23kg (this compares well with Mercury at 3.3 x 10^23kg).

Estimating for a longer time frame of 300 billion years, dividing by 150 million years equals 2000.

So 1.01^2000 = 439 286 205

Dividing a typical dwarf of between 0.1 and 0.2 solar masses by this increase gives us,

2 x 10^29/ 4.39286 x 10^8 = 4.55 x 10^20kg for the smaller dwarf (this compares well with Tethys the thirty-first largest object in the solar system at 6.17 x 10^20kg) and 9.1 x 10^20kg for the larger (which compares well with Ceres at 9.39 x 10^20kg)

The nearby stars compare well with the solar system and indicate rates of matter creation at 1% every 150 million years and distance acceleration at 1% every 201 to 301 million years. This would be consistent with a growing universe theory and with observation.

Checking the list of nearby stars from the atlasoftheuniverse website I note:-

21 were type M red dwarfs 0.1 solar masses

3 were type G stars, including our sun

1 type F at 1.5 solar masses

And 1 type A at 2.0 solar masses

All this is consistent with rates above.

Table 3 summarising all the rates of matter and distance increases follows:-

Table 3 rates of matter and distance increases.

This would be consistent with a slowing down of growth in distance and mass as planetary bodies become hotter and more massive.

Next we will finally examine the Big Bang Theory, read chapter 4.

**Chapter 4**

Big Bang Theory an Examination

When students have to write a thesis for their University degree, they come up with a thesis statement and then add their supporting arguments, job done.

A debate has opposing arguments that are aired publicly.

This book has been similar to both procedures. I have introduced the possibility that current cosmological thought could be wrong. Indicated what the measurements of the cosmos are telling us. Followed through on what the measurements were indicating. Presented a coherent theory (adjusted calculations) presented again.

I have also been critical of big bang theory and nebular hypothesis but quite sparingly; I felt this could really bore a reader so initially I just wanted to suggest that these theories could be wrong, without going in to details. New interpretations of new and old facts would be more interesting for the reader, I decided for the start of the book.

Now let's hear what the Big Bang Theory has to say for itself.

One point about the use of the word "boffin", this is a derogatory term and shouldn't really be used. I have used it to describe scientists who are enclosed in their thinking (although perhaps not consciously) and have other likeminded scientists who are verifying their work. This can always be a potential problem in any area of science. So "Boffin" has been used as a lazy shorthand by me to make a few points. I am not anti-science (as you might have noticed).

Firstly what is TBBT?

A- It proposes the Universe started in a big bang

Q- What does that mean?

A- Well it was not actually a bang that was a derogatory description from Fred Hoyle who believed in a steady state universe.

Q- So what is the theory then?

A- Think of it more as an expansion of energy. We have a Universe which is made up of a lot of matter. Matter and energy have equivalence, so the Universe must have been a huge amount of energy that expanded.

Q- OK, so I must assume that the Universe was a huge amount of energy that became all the matter of the Universe?

A- Yes but it's quite a safe assumption the Universe couldn't appear out of nothing after all.

Q- Couldn't energy becoming matter be an ongoing process? Instead of this one time event where energy became matter.

A- Possibly, but that wouldn't be the big bang theory.

Let's get into the nuts and bolts of The Big Bang Theory by looking at the chronology of the Universe and what the boffins say about this initial event.

First of all there is a little disclaimer given when looking up the chronology of the Universe:-

All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period. Proposed scenarios differ radically. Some examples are the Hartle–Hawking initial state, string landscape, brane inflation, string gas cosmology, and the ekpyrotic universe. Some of these are mutually compatible, while others are not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

This might be a little disheartening if you were thinking TBBT was a discovery or (probably) correct because there are a variety of hypothesis included under the umbrella term of TBBT that boffins have tried and there are problems with all of them.

Anyway here's a bit of an overview, from the same Wikipedia page:-

Planck epoch

0 to 10^-43 second after the Big Bang

The Planck epoch is an era in traditional (non-inflationary) big bang cosmology wherein the temperature was so high that the four fundamental forces—electromagnetism, gravitation, weak nuclear interaction, and strong nuclear interaction—were one fundamental force.

This is a big ask. The four fundamental forces that we have today, we should assume are one force. I would argue these four forces should be assumed to have existed as four forces forever back in time and will exist forever forward in time, anything other than this requires extraordinary proof as it is an extraordinary claim. The Big Bang theory therefore starts with a wrong premise.

More from the same page:-

Grand unification epoch

Between 10^-43 second and 10^-36 second after the Big Bang[6]

As the universe expanded and cooled, it crossed transition temperatures at which forces separate from each other. These are phase transitions much like condensation and freezing. The grand unification epoch began when gravitation separated from the other forces of nature

Of the four fundamental forces Gravity has separated, the other three are now a different single force. Another big ask.

More from the same page:-

Electroweak epoch

Between 10^-36 second (or the end of inflation) and 10^-32 second after the Big Bang[6]

According to traditional big bang cosmology, the electroweak epoch began 10^-36 second after the Big Bang, when the temperature of the universe was low enough (1028 K) to separate the strong force from the electroweak force (the name for the unified forces of electromagnetism and the weak interaction).

Another separation of forces; disappointing, unimaginative and highly speculative as the disclaimer warned at the beginning. Just a quick quote on inflation (as it gets mentioned all the time):-

The expansion is thought to have been triggered by the phase transition that marked the end of the preceding grand unification epoch at approximately 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang. One of the theoretical products of this phase transition was a scalar field called the inflation field. As this field settled into its lowest energy state throughout the universe, it generated a repulsive force that led to a rapid expansion of space. This expansion explains various properties of the current universe that are difficult to account for without such an inflationary epoch.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch

I love the third sentence in the above quote:-

" _As this field settled into its lowest energy state throughout the universe, it generated a repulsive force that led to a rapid expansion of space."_

In other words Boffins needed a rapid expansion of space to make the theory work better. As the inflationary field settled into its lowest energy state it GENERATED a repulsive force. That's handy, no mention how this force was generated. This REPULSIVE FORCE led a rapid expansion of space, good on the REPULSIVE FORCE for expanding that space. Pushing around the mass of a Universe at break-neck speed would require a tremendous force...but if we want to make TBBT work we have to be ready to accept this generated repulsive force did just that, or come up with an even better techno-babble fix.

So nothing too great so far, let's proceed with what was meant to come next.

The Universe cooled to allow atoms to form these then coalesced as stars and galaxies. This is nebular hypothesis from Emanuel Swedenborg 1734. I have listed the shortcomings of this hypothesis already in chapter 1 so won't repeat them.

The only thing further to add is generations of stars. The first generation of stars according to TBBT would only have Hydrogen and Helium these would burn out quickly and implode. The implosion would create heavier elements that we find on Earth and in our own bodies. Heavier elements would not exist without these initial stars burning out, according to Boffins. Again this looks like finding evidence to fit a theory. Also please remember we only have 13.7 billion years with big bang conjecture for stars to form burn out reform as new generations of stars, with heavier elements in them etc. It is too small a timeframe.

Is there any supporting evidence for TBBT? Plenty, according to Boffins; Cosmic Background Radiation CMBR is claimed to be relic radiation from the big bang event. Boffins assure us that this can not be radiation from stars as it would be obvious that the stars were the source of radiation. Radiation from stars, the Sun's heliosphere for example, is disregarded (or taken out of calculation) so that CMBR can be measured accurately. Because it is very evenly spread throughout the cosmos they argue it is from a big bang event. My only point would be IF the Universe is thousands of billions of years old having a background average radiation at the microwave level just above 3 degrees Kelvin is exactly what would happen to starlight (the source of the radiation would also be unknowable as it would have been deflected and defracted endlessly for this timeframe). Light waves break into smaller wavelengths over time as they lose energy. In other words CMBR does not mean there had to be a big bang event, merely that the cosmos is thousands of billions of years old.

I would argue Big Bang Theory is weak. It doesn't really state what the theory itself is just that the Universe MUST have started in an expansion. The supporting arguments have a confirmation bias. Particle accelerators studying sub atomic particles can support theories where energy becomes matter. This does not mean they only support TBBT. My own theory is also supported by particle physics as it also requires energy to become matter.

I much prefer looking at the data gathered about the Cosmos and deriving a theory on what these measurements are suggesting (dialectical method). This is much better than the trap Cosmology has fallen into of believing in Swedenborg's cloud theory from 1734 stapled together with LeMaitre's giant atom theory 1927 (pre cursor to the big bang theory) and deciding the cosmos is 13.7 billions of years old (formalistic method).

In the next chapter I will provide more evidence supporting my theory.

**Chapter 5**

The Earth and the Moon

My growing cosmos theory predicts that moons are created by Gas Giants which will erupt and throw matter into space periodically. The nine planets of the Solar System are good evidence for this. Also the planets expand their orbits as they drag on their Primary the Sun.

When we examine the Earth and the moon it seems obvious they were created from one ejection. The Earth and moon orbit around a barycentre, this is the centre of mass of the two bodies. At the same time they orbit the Sun as a unit.

What seems ludicrous is the suggestion that a Mars sized object came from somewhere and smashed into a proto-planet which split in two to become the Earth and moon. It might seem ludicrous but this is what Boffins would have you believe.

So why is it ludicrous?

One, Mars sized objects are usually (always) found orbiting a larger object like our Sun. Any object will move in a straight line unless attracted to a nearby larger object. In other words there will be a barycentre between the Mars sized object and nearest large object which the Mars type planet will orbit around.

Now for this Mars type planet to escape its orbital path would require a huge amount of energy and I have no idea where it could come from. Boffins are quite confident that it came from somewhere, lifted it out of it's orbit, projected it towards the Solar system missed the larger Gas Giant planets and smashed into the Proto-Earth splitting it in two. Voila we have the Earth and moon. This is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary proof. I can not find a slither of proof supporting this.

Please look at picture 36: Earth and moon around 50 billion years ago.

Picture 36: Earth and moon around 50 billion years ago

The above picture shows a much more likely explanation for how the Earth and moon were created. The Sun ejected material into space, like it would do for all the planets it created; this ejecta split into two, the smaller portion became the moon the larger became Earth.

The fact that the Sun's diameter is 400 times the size of the moon's and that it is 400 times further from the Earth than the moon, means that the Sun and moon appear to be the same size. This is another example of resonance in the solar system.

Evidence of the moon increasing in mass can be seen when we look at the moon. The moon is tidally locked to the Earth, the same side faces the Earth at all times. The gravitational pull of the Earth distorts the moon into an egg shape. New matter breaks through the crust at the weakest point which is facing the Earth. The seas on the moon, which are really seafloors, are mostly on this side and not the dark (unseeable from the Earth) side. See picture 37: the two sides of the growing moon.

Picture 37: the two sides of the growing moon

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/lroc-20100107-new-images.html

Ceres is described as a dwarf planet that is part of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. It is a large object, the thirty third largest in the solar system. It was formed by an ejection from the Sun. The Sun seems to have been in an active period around 60 billion years ago; the asteroid belt is made up of mini ejections from the Sun, Ceres being the largest of these.

See picture 38: The origin of Ceres and the Asteroid belt around 60 billion years ago

Picture 38: Ceres and the Asteroid belt

This is all my conjecture of course, another possible explanation might be that the Asteroid belt was once a planet that got whacked by something and smashed all to smithereens. Or possibly the asteroid belt will eventually coalesce and become a single planet- kind of like nebular hypothesis. These two explanations are not good and don't stand up to scrutiny. I would opt for a lot of ejections from the Sun around 60 billion years ago because it is consistent with observation.

Here's a picture of Ceres:

Picture 39: Ceres

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4496

The origin of Pluto (and Charon) we can similarly decipher from our work before. More than 110 billion years ago a Hotspot erupted on the Equator of the Sun and propelled Pluto and Charon into existence. This was the origin of the Sun's first moon/planet Pluto and its twin Charon.

Here's what I found out about Pluto and Charon from the. nineplanets org website:

Pluto orbits beyond the orbit of Neptune (usually). It is much smaller than any of the official planets and now classified as a "dwarf planet". Pluto is smaller than seven of the solar system's moons (the Moon, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan and Triton).

On 14 July 2015 the New Horizons spacecraft did a flyby of Pluto after being launched.

Pluto has five moons: Charon, Hydra, Nix, Kerberos, Styx.

Until the visit by New Horizons the individual masses of Pluto and Charon could not be determined with great accuracy.

Pluto and Charon size comparisons by New Horizons:

Diameter Mass Density

Pluto 2372 km 1.303e22 kg 1.860 +/- 0.013 g/cm

Charon 1208 km 1.586e21 kg 1.702 +/- 0.021 g/cm

The Pluto-Charon pair orbit about each other around a common center of mass called the barycenter.

http://nineplanets.org/pluto.html

nineplanets had this further to say about Pluto:

Pluto has an atmosphere consisting of mainly nitrogen extending to 1,600 km above the surface...

and went on to ask the question:

Question: Pluto has a surface pressure over 10,000 times less than Earth; it has an atmosphere consisting of 98 percent Nitrogen. It has been determined Pluto is losing Nitrogen from its atmosphere at a rate in the order of tons per hour, yet we have nitrogen glaciers. Where does all the nitrogen come from?

My Answer: This is consistent with a growing cosmos where moons/planets produce so much internal energy the heat breaking through the crust enables chemical reactions that leak gasses and therefore creates atmospheres. If we have atmospheres then condensation of certain gasses into liquids and solids will follow. The Nitrogen Glaciers are a result of matter creation in the interior of Pluto, Nitrogen production occurs as internal heat breaks through the crust. Nitrogen atmosphere naturally follows from this, losing tons of the Nitrogen atmosphere to outer space would also naturally follow.

One point about supernovas, this is always seen as the end a star's life; it has run out of fuel and will therefore collapse into a smaller denser body throwing out a lot of energy. This could also be simply part of the growth process, a body that is creating its own mass and energy might get too hot and light for its size, leading to a collapse into a denser body.

Another point this time about the Pioneer anomaly. Here's an explanation from Wikipedia:

The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect was the observed deviation from predicted accelerations of the Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 spacecraft after they passed about 20 astronomical units (3×109 km; 2×109 mi) on their trajectories out of the Solar System. The apparent anomaly was a matter of tremendous interest for many years, but has been subsequently explained by an anisotropic radiation pressure caused by the spacecraft's heat loss.

This Wikipedia page goes on to say:

Both Pioneer spacecraft are escaping the Solar System, but are slowing under the influence of the Sun's gravity. Upon very close examination of navigational data, the spacecraft were found to be slowing slightly more than expected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly

I THINK it's because the pioneer spacecraft were measured against the orbits of the Gas Giants. As I've already stated these orbits may be increasing at the moon rate as the Gas Giants gain momentum from the Sun. The Pioneer Spacecraft are too small to drag on the Sun so were found to 1000s of metres off course and closer to the Sun than expected.

Anisotropic radiation pressure may have SOMETHING to do with the slowdown but it has the whiff of fact fitting about it (again).

This is now the end of the book. I hope I've made my case clear enough. Big Bang Theory seems wrong because it needs huge mathematical fixes to work and my growing cosmos theory seems right because it is consistent with observation.

Many thanks for taking the time to read this book please leave a review and support my theory by spreading the word. I also have original artwork for sale along with merchandise (T-SHIRTS AND ART-PRINTS) over at fineartamerica.com (hyperlink coming up) and also I will be adding a Youtube video or two (hyperlink to channel coming up). You can also get these links from my homepage at smashwords.com (hyperlink next). My website: www.clackercosmos.com has signed limited editions of my book in print for sale and more things eventually.

More books to follow.

#####

Connect with Robert G Stitt

Smashwords author page: <https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/stitt29rg>

Youtube channel - clacker cosmos: <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3q5et9pr4Gem42Rv15hR4Q>

Artwork for sale: <http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/1-robert-stitt.html>

My website: www.clackercosmos.com

