Radial Motion of Stars in the Milky Way Supports SQK Creation Theory

In November 2010, researchers at Strassbourg Astronomical Observatory announced discovering the stars in the Sun’s local neighborhood have an average motion away from the Galactic core with the outward radial velocity increasing for stars increasingly close to the Galactic center; see news story:

Stars that are about 6,000 light years closer to the Galactic center than the Sun were found to be moving away from the Galactic center at a speed of about 10 km/second relative to the solar system.  At this relative speed they would reach our radial distance in about 180 million years.  According to one estimate, the Sun is traveling towards the Galactic center at about 10 km/s.  So stars at this 6000 light year distance would be stationary relative to the Galactic center.  However, the study found that there was a radial velocity gradient of about 3 km/s per kiloparsec with the radial velocity towards us increasing with increasing distance toward the Galactic center.  If this trend were found to continue for distances closer to the Galactic center, stars at a distance of 3000 light years from the GC would be moving radially away from the GC at around 20 km/s, which means they could reach the Sun’s radial distance in about 300 million years.

If future measurements bear out that stars in the inner portion of the Galaxy have a net a net radial motion away from the Galactic center, this would support the subquantum kinetics (SQK) continuous creation theory which predicts that spiral galaxies should be gradually growing in size due to the ejection of matter being continuously created in their cores.

P. LaViolette
Nov. 2011

Evidence Against Black Hole in Galactic Core

Central black sphere indicates the size of the hypothesized gravitationally lensed black hole event horizon compared to Mercury’s orbit (inner circle). The white source inside indicates the comparable size of the observed microwave emission region. The blue sphere within that is the best estimate for the size of the Sgr A* mother star.

Conventional astronomy has for decades maintained that the core of our Galaxy harbors a black hole singularity.  The latest estimate places the mass of the core at 4.0 ± 0.3 million solar masses.  Since its first publication in 1985, subquantum kinetics has maintained that black holes can’t form.  It maintains that the massive objects in the cores of galaxies are instead very massive, very old stellar cores which are kept from collapsing by the prodigious amount of “genic” energy produced in their interior through the predicted photon blueshifting effect.
Subquantum kinetics has maintained that Sgr A* is not a black hole, but a “mother star.”  New observational evidence of the Galactic core that has been coming in favors this subquantum kinetics interpretation.  Recently, it has been determined that Sgr A* has a diameter of just 37 micro arc seconds or 39 million km if we assume a Galactic center distance of 23,000 light years.  This is about one third the diameter of Mercury’s orbit or 28 times the diameter of the Sun.  By comparison, a 4.0 million solar mass black hole is calculated to have a Schwarzschild radius of 13.3 million kilometers and due to gravitational lensing the Schwarzschild event horizon should appear to us to have a diameter of 69 million km (5.2 times larger than the Schwarzschild radius).  This would be about 56 percent the diameter of Mercury’s orbit.  So the Galactic center is actually observed to have a radius almost half as large as is predicted by black hole theory.  That is, radio emission is coming from a region which black hole theory predicts should be completely dark, from which light should not escape!
Black hole theorists have tried to get around this by claiming that this radio emission is not coming directly from Sgr A* but from its immediate vicinity from a region close to the surface of its event horizon.  But if this were the case, this emission region should be observed to orbit Sgr A* or at least rotate around Sgr A* participating in the rotation of the “black hole’s” event horizon envelope.
But no such rotation is seen (see January 2011 article in Science News).  If the black hole theory were correct, some degree of rotary motion would be expected since infalling material is theorized to add angular momentum to  the black hole causing it to rotate.  Instead, astronomers observing the emission from Sgr A* at millimeter wavelengths have determined that it is spinning either very slowly or not at all (http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.2770).  Even if it had not “dined” in a while some amount of rotation would be expected to remain from its previous dining event.  To explain its prodigious cosmic ray emission rather frequent mass accretion would be required.  Finding matter in its immediate vicinity to accrete is another problem since its radiation pressure has swept this inner region clear of gas and dust.
So the bottom line is that the black hole explanation for the Galactic center is in serious trouble.  Anyone with an objective mind quickly realizes why the Sgr A* emission is not moving, i.e., not orbiting any hypothetical central mass; it is because the emission is coming directly from Sgr A* not from any hypothetical accretion disc.  Since direct emission from within the gravitationally lensed Schwarzschild singularity is impossible according to black hole theory, we are lead inevitably to conclude that Sgr A* is not a black hole.  It is a mother star, a very dense, primordial, energy-and-matter-generating stellar core.  The best estimate gives it a diameter about 21.6 times that of the Sun, or about one-fourth the diameter of Mercury’s orbit.  The mother star is shown as the blue sphere in the above image.  For further details about mother stars see Subquantum Kinetics.

CMBR map aligned with ecliptic?

While researching the Copernican principle in Wikipedia, I noted the reference to the surprising finding that the cosmic microwave background radiation map from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe is aligned with the ecliptic.  Does SQK theory shed any light on this mystery?

Answer to your question: This ecliptic alignment found in analysis of the CMRB data is certainly embarrassing for the big bang theory.  The discussion found on the Gonzo Science website, I think about sums it up.   In my 1983 Ph.D. dissertation I had commented on the fact that the hot and cold poles of the CMBR are aligned near the ecliptic and almost exactly perpendicular to the Galactic center implying that there may be a contribution by cosmic ray electrons streaming from the Galactic core, becoming caught in the solar system’s magnetosphere and heating nearby magnetized plasma.  As I show in ch. 7 of  Subquantum Kinetics, the 2.73° K temperature of CMBR is easily explained by heating of nearby filaments of magnetized plasma by the incident cosmic ray background radiation flux.  This radiation would have to be present regardless of whether or not a primordial explosion also created it.  So a big bang cause is superfluous.  This favors subquantum kinetics which instead predicts that matter creation takes place through a process of continuous creation.
Paul LaViolette,  January 28, 2011

SQK Simulations Question

On page 79 of your new edition of SQK, regarding the simulated nucleation of a neutral particle, you state that no net decrease in G below the steady state value is seen. That is not quite apparent to me from the simulation. Although biased more toward neutral than in Figure 17, the area under the G curve still seems to be net negative. I suppose the curve is just narrow at the particle, and hence, the area is essentially zero. Perhaps that is the point? Perhaps the figures are not quite accurate? What am I missing?

Answer to your question: This simulation of a neutral particle (shown below) plots concentration vs. radial distance from the particle center.  But since volume increases as the cube of radius, the volume of the adjacent high-G shell will be found to be much greater than that of the low-G core region.  To sum up the total G-on discrepancy above and below the zero potential line we must multiply the concentration value by the volume increment that it resides in.  When we do this, it is found that the G-on excess in the shell approximately equals the G-on deficit in the core.  So both average out to zero.  The same should be found by analyzing successive cycles of the neutral particle’s Turing wave pattern.
Paul LaViolette,  Jan. 28, 2011

Quasars Short-term Events?

LaViolette predicted quasars as short-term phenomenon. He confirms this prediction published in his dissertation in 1983.   He remarks that it is related to galactic core outbursts, such as have occurred in our galaxy, the latest of which shut off around 10-11,000 years ago.  New evidence confirms this short period cycle: http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-cosmic-curiosity-reveals-ghostly-dead.html

More about this is discussed in the Starburst superwave forum.

Massive Galaxy Cluster Discovered in Early Universe


The cluster is predicted to be one of the largest in today’ terms, and must have formed very early, full of old galaxies. How likely is the rapid formation of such a large structure using popular condensation models?

Answer to your question: I don’t know, but I would not be surprised if big bang theorists have to push their galaxy formation models to their limits to get such a massive grouping of galaxies to form at this early period.  Such findings do not pose a problem for subquantum kinetics.
Paul LaViolette,  January 28, 2011

And now (March, 2011) a supercluster similar in mass to the Virgo Cluster has been discovered to have fully formed only 3 billion years after the Big Bang.  The surprising admission is that both the cluster structure and the galaxies therein do not appear young.


April 2011: Another massive cluster 7.5 billion light years distant and 1000 times larger than the Milky Way galaxy, is the most massive cluster known.


May 2011: An unexpectedly massive quasar now discovered only 770 million years after the big bang. Current models don’t explain how it could have grown so big so fast.



Early Galactic Centers with Less Metal Content


Observations of low concentrations of heavy elements in the centers of primordial galaxies are being interpreted as evidence of gas accretion from the galaxy’s surroundings and condensation in central region to explain galaxy formation and growth.   Could this instead be interpreted as evidence of new matter expulsion from central region as evidence of continuous matter creation in primordial galaxies?

Answer to your question: The astronomers reporting these SINFONI spectrometer findings have no direct evidence that these primordial galaxies are accreting hydrogen.  This interpretation is made because the standard theory must somehow explain why primordial galaxies are smaller than contemporary nearby galaxies.  The early finding by the Hubble Telescope for the presence of galaxy size evolution actually provides a confirmation of the subquantum kinetics (SQK) continuous creation cosmology over the big bang cosmology which predicts no such size evolution (see the posted list of subquantum kinetics prediction confirmations).  So astronomers have been trying to find ways of modifying standard cosmology to allow it to grow galaxies.  Their finding that primordial galaxies have low heavy metal abundances does not really prove that they are being flooded with hydrogen gas.  So this inference seems very weak.  On the other hand, the observation that heavy metal abundances in primordial galaxies are low provides strong support for the SQK continuous creation cosmology.  That is, primordial galaxies should not have had as much time to synthesize heavy metals, either through thermonuclear fusion processes or parthenogenic matter transmutation processes that would continuously take place within stars.
Paul LaViolette,  January 28, 2011

Distant galaxy too distant for big bang theory?

Is the most distant galaxy discovered to date too distant?  At 600 million years post big bang, this galaxy is supposed to be shrouded in hydrogen fog.  See the following news posting:


Galaxy formation timeline according to the big bang theory. Courtesy of NASA WMAP Science Team

Answer to your question:
Yes, this galaxy, UDFy-3813553, presents a problem for standard cosmology since the most successful galaxy formation theory that big bang theorists have been able to propose requires at least three quarters of a billion years for a galaxy to form.  This galaxy was found to have a redshift of 8.6, which gives it a big bang age of 600 million years.  The big bang theory is hard pressed to explain this finding.  The standard big bang theory maintains that neutral matter did not begin to form until about 450 million years after the big bang when the fireball had expanded and cooled sufficiently to allow the formerly ionized plasma to combine into neutral hydrogen and helium atoms.  A date of 600 million years would leave just 150 million years for this galaxy full of stars to have formed from sparsely dispersed neutral gas, far too short a time for any galaxy formation model.

In January 26, 2011, astronomers reported finding an even more distant galaxy with a redshift of ~10, which would give it a big bang age of 480 million years.  See posting at:
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-hubble-contender-galaxy-distance.html.  This would mean that it existed just 30 million years after the end of the Dark Age, giving it insufficient time to have formed.

In December 2012, things became even more grim for the big bang theory.  An even more distant galaxy was found, UDFj-39546284, which has a redshift of z = 11.9.  See posting at:


This galaxy would have a big bang age of just 380 million years, which would place it 80 million years prior to the end of the Dark Age, at a time when neutral matter had not yet formed.  This is a clear and blatant contradiction for the big bang theory.  It does not take a rocket scientist to see that things are looking pretty tough for standard cosmology.

In 1995, in my book Beyond the Big Bang (now entitled Genesis of the Cosmos), I had stated:

“If we live in a static, tired-light universe, as the ancient cosmology and subquantum kinetics predicts, then we could expect to see star-populated galaxies with redshifts perhaps as high as thirty, forcing the big bang theory into an even more tenuous position.”
Beyond the Big Bang, Rochester, VT, Park Street Press, 1995, p. 265.

At that time the most distant galaxy that had been discovered was a quasar with a redshift of z ~ 4.  We have come a long way since then and I predict that ultimately my prediction will be fulfilled.

Also of interest, in June 2011 a very bright quasar ULAS J1120+0641 was discovered at a redshift of z = 7.1, which gives it a big bang age of 770 million years.  Astronomer have no way to explain how a galaxy could have formed such a massive core so quickly, essentially just 200 million years after the hydrogen recombination era.


Paul LaViolette
January 28, 2011, updated February 2013


Giant planet formation: Core-accretion theory questioned

Luke Skywalker viewing twin sunset on his home planet

Giant planet formation is claimed to be unlikely via core-accretion in certain double star systems.   Does this support the gravitational collapse mechanism for planet formation, and therefore, support the SQK cosmogenic evolution theory of daughter planet formation?

Answer to your question: Subquantum kinetics predicts that giant planets should form both from gravitational collapse of surrounding gas, core accretion from a parent star, and internal matter creation.  The disrupting effect of double star systems does not become so much of a problem when it is realized that subquantum kinetics predicts that these stars were once much smaller and that formerly they consisted of a lower mass star and daughter planet pair that later grew in size through internal matter creation.  In this earlier single star environment, a third planet could easily have formed which over time would have grown into a giant planet.
Paul LaViolette, January 28, 2011

Genic energy powering pulsar?

News that magnetic fields do not explain flaring activity of pulsar. Could this support a genic energy explanation for flaring outbursts?

Answer to your question: Yes, this is strong evidence for genic energy production in evolved stellar cores.  The above link relates to the discovery of the slowly rotating neutron star SGR  0418.  Standard theory predicts that neutron stars are collapsed objects that are unable to generate energy through nuclear fusion due to lack of fuel.  Evidence of cosmic ray energy production in neutron stars presumes that their rotating magnetic fields accelerates particles consuming the energy stored in the rotation of their mass.  But this pulsar, which rotates about once every 9 seconds has a weak magnetic field and no sign of slowing down, hence no indication of rotary energy loss.  So the problem is what fuels its radiation output and in particular the X-ray flares that it gives off.  Subquantum kinetics, on the other hand, predicts that neutron stars should be producing genic energy in their interiors at a very high rate due to the phenomenon of spontaneous photon blueshifting.  So large energy fluxes are expected to be coming from neutron stars due to energy spontaneously created in their interiors.  Since standard theory has no reasonable explanation for what is happening in SGR 0418, this is a win for SQK.

Paul LaViolette,  January 28, 2011