Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Tree of Life

image from Tree of Life

Tree of Life (2011) is an unorthodox movie directed by Terrence Malick. It seeks to probe the meaning of existence. Why are we here? It is a sort of meditation. It revolves around a mythical 1950's Texas family composed of Father, Mother, and three sons. This family is framed in by a creation sequence which opens the movie. Although Malick draws from the modern myth of the Big-Bang as well as the myth of nebular hypothesis this creation sequence is truly stunning as is the entire movie. Malick's concepts are perfectly conveyed through symbols.

Malick draws from the Judeo-Christian tradition. The first frame of the movie is a couple of lines from Job 38:

Where were you when I set the foundations of the earth? . . .
When the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

One concept taken from the Imitation of Christ written by the Medieval Catholic Thomas a Kempis: The way of nature and the way of grace (see Chapter 91, The Contrary Workings of Nature and Grace here). These contrary ways are embodied in the Father and the Mother. The Father is the way of nature and the Mother is the way of grace. The tension between the Father and the Mother symbolizes the tension between these two workings in us.

Malick seems to take Ecclesiastes' expression 'under the sun' to a spiritual level of meaning. In almost all the frames including the family the sun lingers in the background as if God is watching. It even halos the saintly Mother in a striking scene. The sun is a symbol for God. The movie culminates in a symbolic Resurrection sequence. In this the Mother is in a manner summoned by the Sun and is taken up to the Sun as if assumed in Heaven. The beauty of these scenes is unspeakable.

There is a symbol in the Resurrection sequence I am fond of. The camera sort of flies you over the ancient ruins on the Earth's surface. Then you are taken into an adobe house. In this house is a bedecked bride pale and lying dead on a bed. Then in a flash she is awake shimmering with light. A resurrected Bride like in the Book of Revelation. This movie has so many good things going for it that it would be impossible to comment it all in one blog. 

I credit this movie with teaching me a reason why God named the firmament Heaven (Hebrew Shamayim). From Genesis 1:8

And God called the firmament ‘Heaven.’

My understanding is that the firmament is Earth's sphere (i.e. the atmosphere, the sky). 

In the childhood scenes of Tree of Life, the Mother is holding one of her toddler children and spinning. She stops, points up toward the sky and says, "That's where God lives." And then it hit me. God labeled Earth's sphere: Heaven since he associated it with His sphere, that object that God built around Himself. God created His sphere prior to Earth and we also refer to this object as Heaven. The name is a concept relating Earth's sphere to God's sphere which is detached from all matter. Both are called Heaven. And I think God intends us to use this concept when we teach our children.

I read a book called 'The Life of Saint Joseph as manifested by Our Lord, Jesus Christ to Maraia Cecilia Baij.' Like Blessed A.C. Emmerich, Baij was a Catholic mystic nun. She had prophetic experiences of Saint Joseph's life and recorded them in this her book. There is a part when Jesus, Mary, and Joseph were living in Heliopolis, Egypt. If I recall correctly she recorded that they stayed there until Jesus was about six years old. In Heliopolis Jesus would befriend the children and teach them. Baij has it recorded that Jesus would point up to the sky and tell the children, "That is where my Father lives." Jesus and the Mother from Tree of Life do not mean this expression really or literally. It is a type of concept: a figurative association which God intended us to use.

This might explain the expression "the Heaven of Heaven". This is used by Solomon and others in the Old Testament (1 Kings 8:27):

For if heaven, and the heaven of heaven, is not able to contain you, how much less this house, which I have built?

They understood the association between Earth's sphere and that discrete sphere where God lives. The sphere of God is an object which God created discrete from matter. It is beyond matter. Up is a figurative association.  Some speculate God created His sphere prior to matter. This is where Jesus ascended too and where Mary was assumed too. This is where the just souls and good angels are taken up to in order to see God face to face. God lives there. We call it the Heaven of the Blessed or simply Heaven. Our atmosphere is an association with that discrete sphere of God we hope to go to. God naming the atmosphere Heaven is a conceptual figure. When a mother points up and says to her child, "That's where God lives" she is fulfilling God's purpose of the name.

One can also speculate as to why God chose the particular Hebrew word Shamayim to label the sky. This I will hopefully do when I get deep into my Genesis One interpretation, but I am as yet just at the surface.

So did Malick successfully convey the meaning of existence in his movie?
I think he did. It is embodied in the Mother's whispered voice overs:

Help each other
Love everyone
every blade of grass
every ray of light.

The only way to be happy is to love
Unless you love your life will flash by
Do good to them . . .
Wonder . . .

Sunday, May 26, 2013

Stellar Metamorphosis

Stellar Metamorphosis Theory is proposed by Jeffrey Wolynski 

About a year and a half ago Jeff came up with a stunning insight which could be summed up in one line:

A star is a planet and a planet is a star.

To Jeff what we label planets and moons are really stars in latter stages of metamorphosis. They are old stars. A star is a new planet. A planet is an old star. A planet like the Earth is a cinder of what was once a star. Call it a dark star or a black dwarf. The Moon is a dead star. The molecules on a given planet are homegrown. According to Jeff, stars cool, shrink, and combine elements into molecules. Some if not most stars simply transition into what are known as planets. These migrate from throughout the galaxy and meet up with younger stars like our Sun thus forming systems. Older stars orbit newer stars. This is his fundamental assumption, or his hypothesis. From this he has developed what he calls an Alternative Star Science. He uses his hypothesis to radically reinterpret astronomical objects. His views are embodied in the article here.

The fundamental assumption is sound, intuitive, elegant, subtle, profound, simple yet complex. It quite efficiently explains the origin of planet's elements/molecules (note that supernovas are rare events), the roundness of the planets, the radical difference in size, appearance, and composition of the planets, the varying levels of differentiation, differences in magnetic field orientation as well as axis' of rotation. Our solar system is in Jeff's words "an adopted family". Stellar Metamorphosis explains why we have a gazillion ton iron-nickel ball under our feet (differentiation). The evolution of a star fashioned our round iron-nickel core, not the Iron Catastrophe. The only thing wrong with his fundamental assumption is that it contradicts the Big Bang Myth, the solar nebular hypothesis and a hundred year old stellar evolutionary theory which needs radical revision. These are bread and butter scientific ideas which have cost the nations billions of dollars in research.

Science is not a religion. The scientific community has no God-given authority to teach doctrine and dogma. The only authority science can invoke is reason. If the scientific hypothesis is rational and can rationally explain an object then it carries with it some weight. If the hypothesis cannot even reasonably explain fundamentals or get off the ground then it loses its weight. Science cannot invoke mystery, miracles or predictions. All it can do is rationally explain objects. If a hypothesis cannot do this it needs a radical revision or abandonment: not a load of ad hoc variables, computer simulations and math equations. A reasonable independent hypothesis such as Jeff's should not be ridiculed or treated as heresy. Nor should one with a genuine new insight be treated with contempt. This type of behavior is an anti-Christian intellectual prejudice on par with racism.

Jeff's article thoroughly tears down solar nebular hypothesis. It is an unsound hypothesis. Even the scientists themselves who work with this hypothesis tell you they do not understand how dust grains transform into planetismals within the speculated proto-planetary disk. And this is their first step of planetary formation!!! They cannot tell you how Jupiter or Saturn assembled its gas. They cannot tell you how the Sun lost its angular momentum to the planets in the hypothesized spinning cloud of gas and dust even though this momentum is essential to their assumption of the entire system's formation! It cannot explain many other basic phenomenon of our system. Solar nebular hypothesis is a faulty blueprint. It never got off the ground. And it never will!  

Wolynski's article provides data with a little critical thinking. It begins with a list of observations which contradict nebular hypothesis. With the Kepler Space Telescope we have logged potentially thousands of so called exoplanets: planets not of our system. These defy the current model. Nebular hypothesis will never be able to explain:

* planets orbiting opposite the rotation of their host star
* planets orbiting binary, even quadruple star systems
* an exoplanet without a host star,
* eccentric orbits
* binary stars with five hour orbital periods,
* gas contraction from gravity alone in the hard vacuum of outer space
* giant planet migration from within the speculated proto-planetary disk
* There is no mechanism for 1 centimeter sized pebbles to clump into 1 kilometer sized rocks to form planets in outer space.

Jeff has a bounty of new ideas. Some are ingenious and others perhaps not so good. But his theory opens up a new window with lots of fresh air. There is no possible way I can include all his ideas but I will share some highlights:

He reinterprets and extends the Hertzsprung-Russel to include planets which he labels Auburn Stars, Brown stars (Jupiter/Saturn), Grey Stars (Kepler 35b), Blue dwarf stars (Neptune/Uranus) Dark Blues, Black Dwarfs (Earth) and at the bottom Dead Stars (the Moon, Mercury, Pluto, Mars).

He speculates that circumstellar disks are debris (shrapnel) from the collision of two dead stars (such as moons). This explains the origin of asteroids. He remarks:

This explains why many asteroids are irregularly shaped and why 75% of all asteroids are of a carbon composite. This shrapnel stays in outer space travelling at the same velocity as it left the impact with until it comes in contact with the atmosphere of a younger star. . . Their purity can be a good approximation of their location in a star, as the purest were probably the closest to the middle of the star.

He provides his own model of stellar formation. If I am not mistaken some of his stellar ideas are similar to Electric/Plasma Universe models (a modern alternative to the Big-Bang founded on the insights of Alton Harp and Hannes Alfven).

He calculates two new (and inconclusive) Sun masses one using the tides.

For me a high point of his article is his treatment of Jupiter. He notes Jupiter emits more light than it receives from the Sun. He speculates that the radiation comes from the neutralization of chemical elements forming molecules similar to Earth. This process causes Jupiter to shrink. He associates the brown and blue bands which appear on the surface of Jupiter with the Earth's ocean and grand canyon:

It [Jupiter] has very high ratios of ionized material as is evidenced by large electrical currents in the gigantic atmosphere of this aging star, as the metallic hydrogen explanation fails to account for ionization which is clearly evidenced via radio waves. This means that the mathematical models for Jupiter being only a neutralized ball of gas have been falsified extensively by the observational evidence for radio wave emission. This ionized material is in the process of water ocean formation and because of this will further facilitate the layers of silicates to cool from waters’ high specific heat capacity. The water is what cools the silicates down to form a crust that encapsulates the still molten core and will trap the heat of this star for many more billions of years.

This process is also what forms the layers of rocks seen on the Earth such as feldspars and quartz and creates entire swaths of land raised slightly above the more dense basaltic formations. The more water that is formed from hydrogen and oxygen neutralizing each other, the smaller the magnetic field of Jupiter will become over time. Over many more millions of years it will eventually take up the appearance of Neptune and Uranus which have vast oceans of water and are in the process of life formation.

The layers of the Grand Canyon were made as a result of direct deposition of gaseous silicon dioxide and hydrogen based molecular gases that have higher ionization potentials, as opposed to high density hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas, coal) and iron based composites that deposited in earlier stages of metamorphosis. Deposition is a process in physics when a gas becomes directly a solid and is an essential process in Stellar Metamorphosis as well as other types of phase transitions. We can see this process in the creation of snowflakes from water vapor being directly deposited in crystalline patterns that fall to the ground and layer themselves on the Earth.

He speculates that Earth is a black dwarf.

He criticizes radiometric dating since it is limited to solid structures and geology. If the planet did indeed go through plasma, gas and liquid transitions it would be impossible to date it:

It is hypothesized that the Earth was not always a solid rock-like structure. This assumption therefore leaves the total age of the Earth in question because it is known that plasmas, liquids and gases are mostly isotropic in nature and cannot be radiometrically dated. If the Earth were to be a much less solid structure in its past resembling Alpha Centauri, the Sun or Jupiter, then it means that entire eons of the Earth’s history have been ignored because radiometric dating methods require solid structure. The acceptance of the Earth being roughly 4.5 billion years old therefore is cast into doubt. The Earth’s age is more than likely into the tens of billions maybe hundreds of billions of years old.

He speculates that Earth was at one point an ocean world covered in deep ice/water.

He also exposes the radiometric dating the rock samples of the Moon. Eight samples yielded a date of over 4.5 billion years. One sample yielded a date of 22.7 billion years old! Here is the chart exposing the 22.70 billion year old sample:

The surface of the Moon is older than the surface of the Earth. With Stellar Metamorphosis applied the Moon and the Earth are two different types of stars at different stages of development. They are a binary star system. And these objects are much older than mainstream science would have you think.

Using several telescope images of quasars streaming jets of gas Jeff speculates that quasars give birth to galaxies. He uses the simple analogy of an acorn and oak tree. Acorn = quasar, oak tree = galaxies. I've seen similar ideas from other thinkers. The arms of spiral galaxies are (to me) clearly remnants of the paths new born galaxies took when they shot forth form from the mother active galactic nuclei.

Toward the end of his article Jeff criticizes the Iron Catastrophe, the so called theory of how Earth's iron-nickel core formed. He also provides an explanation of silicate and amethyst formation. And many other ideas.

I do not agree with all of Wolynski's ideas but his fundamental assumption and criticisms are to my mind as true as day. The Earth=star is among the very best insights I have come across in my entire life. And it allows me to understand something which has bothered me for years: Genesis 1:2. The second verse of the Bible. The Genesis One narrative clearly begins with a pre-existing astronomical object. This pre-existing object was once a star which God ordained from the beginning of time. God acts to miraculously transfigure an elect star at the latter stages of its development. This is the first part of Genesis One.

I do not find anything ridiculous about the fundamental assumption of Stellar Metamorphosis. If you find the idea--the Earth is the cinder of what was once a star--ridiculous I call to your mind what God said to Job:

Where were you when I founded the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its size? Surely you know?
Who stretched out the measuring line for it?
Into what were its pedestals sunk,
and who laid its cornerstone,
While the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy? (38:4-7)

God associates the founding of planet Earth with a time when the first completed stars (morning stars) were figuratively singing and praising Him. Planet Earth is a transfigured star.

Another thinker Anthony J. Abruzzo came to the same hypothesis independent of Jeff. His is called Stellar Transformation. This will be covered in the next blog.  

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

The Large Quasar Group

In January researchers, using the Sloan Digital Sky survey, discovered the Large Quasar Group (LGC) see here. It is a group of 73 quasars allegedly sitting 9 billion light years away. It stretches 4 billion light years across. By comparison our Milky Way is 100 thousand light years across. The LGC is the largest known structure of the universe. According to the standard cosmological model it is not suppose to exist. It defies the cosmological principle as well as Einstein's thought. The modern cosmological model embodied by the Big-Bang has never moved beyond reasonable doubt, but it together with some of Einstein's thought, is treated as doctrine.

Prior to the LGC discovery I took countless hours to study the history of modern cosmology with its ideas in service to my Genesis One interpretation. I took the time to understand all the principles. I can still explain to you their weird ideas starting from their conceptual beginning. I knew the current modern cosmological scientific world was cutthroat: full of greed, ambition, and insane schemes such as burrowing oneself in a pit of the Earth in search for dark matter (see the 4% Universe by Richard Panek). Some of these are baby-men in search for glory. But I took them more or less at their word, thinking they were serving mankind. After all this is science right? I was taught to put my head down and believe what the scientists told me.

Prior to LQG I had shadows of doubt concerning modern cosmology. Subsequent to LQG I had serious doubts about the Big Bang Theory and all of modern cosmology. I thought what variables will they now add to the already bloated equation? I could start to see that they were contradicting themselves, and simply shrugging their shoulders in the wake.

I feel I got played the fool. Now I think they are out of their depth.

Fortunately, I took some time off and now I clearly see that they have built an artifice on false assumptions. Modern cosmology is a string of false assumptions. It uses false assumptions to create laws. The laws are treated as infallible. It uses these laws to explain the incoming data provided by observation. It relies too heavily on math, proofs and prediction.

To a limited degree modern cosmology is a circle which begins and ends with Olber's Paradox: a flawed argument which leads to no conclusion. This unsolvable Paradox was posited by Olber and perhaps others such as Diggs and Kepler.

There are many approaches one can take to Olber's so called Paradox. Olber's Paradox concludes the whole night sky should be lit like the Sun. Little did he know that the whole night sky is lit up only our sensory systems do not detect the light signal even though they stimulate all the atoms of our bodies and all atoms of Earth even the atoms of our T.V. sets. The light signals do not come from the mythical Big-Bang but from all galaxies now in existence.

Olber predicates that the night sky should be lit up on the assumptions that 1. space is boundless, 2. stars are uniformly distributed, and 3. the population of stars extends forever into limitless space, so every possible line of sight (i.e. pixel) in the sky ends on a star.

1. Space is boundless. It lacks shape. It has no substance. It is nothing. It is neither limitless or limited. God did not create it. It is purely conceptual. Olber was right in this assumption. Unfortunately, modern cosmology has posited that space is a mystical substance which can behave and produce concepts as well as real objects. It also has the universe posited as an object with shape when in fact it is a conceptual system relating space and matter. This has led it to countless errors in interpreting data. And it has helped lead to an arrogant explanation of the universe.

2. Stars are uniformly distributed. Olber lived prior to the discovery of galaxies. He did not realize that stars are not uniformly distributed since he had no concept of a galaxy or a clustered group of 73 quasars. God shaped the matter he created asymmetrically. There is no such thing as an isotropic, homogeneous universe. The Copernican principle is outdated. The law of universality has failed. There are so called preferred directions as in the case of LGC. A center of the universe is irrelevant since the universe is a concept.

3. The population of stars extends forever. This argument implies that matter is infinite. Any Jew or Christian knows that matter is not infinite. Any philosopher worth his weight knows that matter cannot be infinite otherwise there would be one block of continuous matter.

Olber's Paradox is ridiculous. The fact that modern cosmology is in part built on solving this paradox (as well as innumerable other things) leaves me no choice but to abandon the model of modern cosmology embodied by the Big-Bang. They have built an artifice, a wondrous dream.  The Big-Bang is NOT a part of science, it falls in the category of myth.  

Modern cosmology's failure to rethink their fundamentals has led them to some ridiculous concepts such as an accelerating universe, dark matter, dark energy, inflation, Big-Bang shock waves, oscillating plasma coupled to photons, and a 0D mathematical singularity which is the god behind it all. The next step is that this 0D singularity cycled out of the death of a prior universe. A prior universe which compressed into a dot much smaller than an atom! At least the person who made up this idea thinks that this universe had to come from some other source! It is counter intuitive to think a 0D singularity could produce things. God simply makes a knowing choice. There is no trace of this choice other than the teachings of Divine Revelation.  One could reason to the truth that there is a God and that God created all things, but one cannot scientifically predict, prove or compute this choice.  One cannot mathematically compute, prove or predict the miracle of the beginning of matter.    

To put things into a Christian perspective could anyone imagine Jesus teaching these things? It is a tradition that he taught astronomy in the Temple when he was twelve. Do you think he taught an expanding universe, a 0D singularity, dark matter, dark energy, etc.? I could envision myself explaining DNA or cells to an ancient Jew or Christian but if I tried explaining to them a primeval mathematical singularity which produces galaxies I rather think they would laugh. The so called father of the Big Bang, the priest George Lemaitre was out of his Catholic mind.

To frame my Genesis One interpretation I will posit my own cosmological model:

Prior to the existence of atoms I AM: God.
God makes a knowing choice
All atoms which ever were miraculously appear interconnected to all other atoms via intertwined 3D threads intrinsic to the atoms.
The atomic threads have unique properties consistent with light phenomenon.
Twined threads mediate light, gravity, magnetism, electricity from all atoms to all other atoms.
The threads separate at the atomic shells forming the electrons and protons.
The atoms and EM ropes are the two fundamental units of matter.
There are no discrete particles. At the fundamental level there is only a network of atoms.
The atoms are finite.
The atoms neither increase or decrease. They simply recycle through structure development.
Space is a conceptual nothing which can only be discovered or thought of with the presence of atoms.
The atoms arrive stimulated and shape into structures.
In the process atoms are configured into the elements and molecules.
New structures spring up from the dissolution of old structures.
The universe is a conceptual system relating space and matter.
The only way to determine the age of the universe is to determine the age of the first atoms which miraculously appear.
This is impossible.
Atoms could be trillions of years old and they will last forever.
Subsequent to their miraculous appearance the atoms are eternal.
At the consummation; the fire will dissolve all the structures with elements to the most simple form of the atoms (see Saint Peter's prediction 2 Pet 3:10-12).
Beyond the dissolution God will miraculously shape the atoms
into new stars, galaxies and a New Earth.  These will be made of new elements.

Science cannot predict the age of the universe.
And science cannot prove or predict that God created all things and that God will make all things new.  These are empirical matters out of science's depth. These are matters of faith and this is why we proclaim we believe in God the Creator at the beginning of our Creeds.

Lemaitre resented Pope Pius XII for adopting his primeval atom idea to validate the Catholic Faith and Creation. He was right to do this. Faith and science can support one another but the beginning of the universe is out of science's depth to discover, prove, predict, compute, demonstrate, observe, etc. The beginning can only be discovered through faith and reason. It was a miracle.  And the beginning can only be explained using a mingling of theology, philosophy and physics. Science has been arrogant in trying to predict and compute the age of the universe and to describe the beginning before it has figured out light, gravity, the structure of an atom, magnetism and electricity.

The Genesis One narrative begins with the Earth at some phase of her development.

Monday, May 20, 2013

A Fundamental Assumption of Physics

I am working with a simple definition of Physics.  It is the study of existence.  Existence is defined as object + location, synonymous with Nature as in Mother Nature, or something somewhere.  The study targets all objects that have presence.

A fundamental assumption is an assumption which underlies assumptions.  Since this blog is written by a Christian lets take the example of the branch of theology known as Christology. Christology is the study of Christ Jesus.  A fundamental assumption of Christology:  Christ Jesus is fully God and fully man.  If you abandon this fundamental assumption in your study of Christ Jesus your explanations will fail.  

A fundamental assumption in physics is all objects are interconnected.  All atoms are connected to all other atoms.  All objects made of atoms are connected to all other objects made of atoms.  All matter is one network.  There is no such thing as a discrete particle.  Not in this universe.  This assumption is simple and yet in its totality complex and subtle beyond imagination.  It is profound.    

This fundamental assumption is intuitive to human persons.  The secretary at my workplace tells me everything is connected.  She might not be able to explain why, but she knows.  This assumption is not a wives tale or some New-Age non-sense.  It is common sense.  Try telling a mother that her body is not connected to her child's body after he or she exits the womb.  

The connection is not conceptual. The connection is not merely spiritual or psychological. The connection is physical:  objects interconnect with objects via objects.  We are not angels, and we do not live in a universe made of spiritual substances.  All things are connected to all other things physically by way of physical mediators inherent to the atoms.  

It is rational to hold this assumption for this is the only way action-at-a-distance i.e. non-local interaction of objects, could be explained.  The mediators between all atoms are not a concept, e.g. spacetime.  They are real 3D threads, intrinsic to the atoms.  God created them.  They are objects.  They have shape.  They meet, weaving atomic shells.  These threads are the fundamental physical substance.  They have unique standalone properties consistent with light phenomenon, e.g. they can pass right through one another like two light beams; they can superimpose like light, clustered objects can pass right through them like they can through light.  

There are no discrete particles in the universe.  In this 2D cross-section picture of two gold atoms colliding I see threads radially dispersing from the electron shell, not discrete particles or mere waves:

                                          Image:  Brookhaven National Lab

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich described that all things are connected.  She says:

I saw the interior, the organs of man as if in the flesh, in corporeal, corruptible images of creatures, as well as their relations with one another, from the stars down to the tiniest living thing. All exert an influence on man.  He is connected with all of them; he must act and struggle against them, and from them suffer. But I cannot express it clearly since I, too, am a member of the fallen race.  (Mysteries of the Old Testament)  
How could stars exert an influence on man unless the atoms in his body were connected with all the atoms of the stars through physical mediators?  All things are connected with all other things via threads and this is what enables relations such as light and gravity.  Light and gravity are mediated by way of real threads intrinsic to the atoms themselves.  It can be no other way.    

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Model Defying Planets

io9 has a nice article summarizing the (now allegedly broken) Kepler Space Telescope's more astonishing discoveries here

Kepler's mission was to discover Earth like planets orbiting other stars in our galaxy. Among the discoveries in the above series are planets orbiting binary star systems (circumbinary planets); a planet orbiting a quadruple star system, a new type of super dense planet, inner gas giants (instead of terrestrial), two radically different planets: a gas giant and terrestrial with nearly identical orbits, and strange migration patterns.  One will never be able to explain these puzzles (let alone others) using nebular hypothesis.  One would have to add endless variables into already bloated theoretical models. 

It is reasonable to assume that at least some of these so called planets are really transformed stars in latter stages of development.  These migrate from other parts of the galaxy and a newer star captures them in her sphere (i.e. heliosphere).  

It is also reasonable to assume that the universe is much older than the Big Bang model with all its fantasy variables would have one think.  

When scientists scratch their heads this is a sign that their theories have failed to explain reality.  They will either start adding variables (ad hoc hypothesis) or abandon the theory altogether.  But abandoning theories is not as simple as it may seem.  The scientific community is like any other community in this fallen and sinful world.