Herschel / Hubble Pearls on a String

The Herschel Space Telescope's 3.5m meter mirror focuses light on three infrared instruments. Herschel can see, in infrared, distant primordial galaxies or local stars hidden within dust clouds. On September 3, 2009, Herschel used a scanning mode to record the far infrared light from a section of the Milky Way near the Southern Cross. This is part of a the picture it took, courtesy of ESA. I adjusted the brightness, lightness and contrast to emphasize the star streams that are normally hidden by galactic dust clouds.

According to accepted scientific theories, the universe was once a  dense ball of primordial plasma. As the universe expanded, atoms formed and gravitated together - the densest clouds condensing into stars. Stars then gravitated into galaxies. Is it possible for clouds to gravitate into a river of equally spaced stars? Why do star-streams look like links on a chain? Local equally spaced astronomical objects, such as comet Shoemaker-Levy-9, spread out by fragmentation, not by accretion. (This picture of the shattered comet is a panorama from the Hubble Space telescope).

The universe's history is visible, unlike any other history. We can see the past through the eons to near the beginning of the universe. This allows us to test the theory of condensing stars by comparing the shapes of galaxies at many ranges. If space clouds are star factories, we should observe early (distant) galaxies condensing from diffuse nebulae into more compact forms. Deep telescopic vistas show naked galaxies often linked together in equally spaced chains. At closer ranges, we see galaxies with short appendages like tadpole tails. This is a primordial galaxy sporting a tail of equally spaced blue star clusters (Hubble Ultra Deep Field galaxy 4491). Notice that the galaxy's tail looks like a bent stream of blue tracer bullets. When we compare galaxy shapes at many ranges (eras), we see that clusters spread out, accelerate out, the orbits opening not closing, making more turns as galaxies grew into huge, local growth spirals. This visible evidence is not trivial since the universe has at least a hundred billion galaxies. Evidently stars did not condense from dust, but rather they were ejected from compact galactic cores and spread out to form local, diffuse growing galaxies.

Here is another example of star streams in the Milky Way. In 2009 the Hubble space telescope was repaired for the last time, receiving a new camera that can record a much wider spectrum. Here is a Hubble picture of the Carina Nebula. In visible light, one sees towering pillars of gas and a turbulent dark cloud. Astronomers claim that Carina's gases are birthing stars. Scientists sometimes describe the Carina nebula as the most intense star birthing area in the Milky Way.

Here is what the new Hubble camera sees in the same area in infrared. The clouds of dust that obscure visible wavelengths, show up as a bluish veil in this infrared picture. Notice that two diametrically opposing jets emanate from a bright star. The actively ejecting star is almost obscured by clouds at visible wavelengths. The jets have equally spaced globs, like the ones we see in the arms of primordial galaxies. A star just above the center also has a trail of gas, a wake, as it is evidently moving out from the turbulent center.

The visible evidence suggests that local gaseous nebulae were formed by ejection phenomena, rather than accretion. Indeed, in some parts of the Milky Way, long, strings of stars in single file span several degrees of our sky. We also observe a long river of hydrogen that connects the Milky Way with the Magellanic companion galaxies. Apparently these small companions were ejected. There is no way a small galaxy could pull out a narrow stream of gas from the core of a larger galaxy. The star streams observed by Herschel and Hubble seem to radiate outward. Indeed, they look like beads of dew on a spider's web. This does not fit the notion that the stars are condensing from the gas.

Why do scientists insist that stars are condensing, when the visible history of the universe shows expanding galaxies, jets and star clusters lined up like beads on a string? Why do scientists imagine that the major forces in the universe are invisible matter and undetectable vacuous forces? By their own admission, their universe is almost 99% invisible. The scientific system was built on an elementary assumption. The scientific definitions, ways of measuring, methods and laws depend on an elementary assumption. Scientists presuppose that matter has fixed properties, that atoms do not change with age. Yet no ancient galaxy shone with the light frequencies of modern atoms. Indeed we observe at many ranges, that atomic clocks generally accelerate throughout cosmic history. Galaxies also grew from tiny dense objects to great dusty growth spirals, the stars following each other out in lanes. This could only happen if the properties of matter continually emerge. To emerge means to gradually come into view. At many ranges we observe that the properties of matter are always gradually changing, as the galaxies grew. Think about it!

If you have not examined the scientific first principle, you can read an essay on it here.

Return to godsriddle main page

This document is under a Creative Commons License by Victor McAllister. What does that mean?
Last modified on October 15, 2009