ASTRONOMY

NOTES OF STEPHEN HAWKING

ANALYSED BY JAGADISH

EARTH IS STATIONARY

one of the most popular belief in human race is the realization that planets like earth, mars etc rotate
around sun.

question now arises is sun stationary or earth stationary

it is also said in science that sun also rotates on its axis just like earth

now question arises how can we prove which theory stands good

1 earth stationary or not

2 sun stationary or not

hypothesis is that

say if earth is stationary

1 we can prove by saying that satellites which are man made rotate around earth and their paths are
fixed

if path of satellites man made is fixed it is also must be true that earth is stationary

2 second thing if satellites are designed which are man made fall on the oceans only and their

trajectory is fixed to fall only on earth ocean

it is proved that earth doesn't have revolution because if revolution is their it is assumed that

satellites which are man made aren't fixed so because satellites man made are fixed earth should

also be stationary to let satellites fall on earth ocean

3 if earth revolves around sun asteroids must be falling now and then

it can be proved by science through commonsense that men like NASA can predict when would

asteroids fall on earth and when it is dangerous for earth

so again we have proved that earth is stationary and not have revolution because of prediction done

by NASA

4) it can also be stated that all other planets are also stationary as planet earth

commonsense again tells that for planets are stationary and hence is made easy by NASA
mathematicians to prove the exact location of the planet when space shuttles are sent to planets

5) we can again prove that earth is stationary by stating that space shuttles man made are sent to

outer space they also return back and if we state that earth is revolving and rotating at the same

time around sun how can space

shuttles return back at the right point as a rate speed of rotation being taken place by planet

so we have to proclaim that earth also doesn't have rotation and all other planets also remain the

same because of same hypothesis which holds good for earth

now question again arises as to which theory is correct which one sun or earth or other planet

which is rotating or revolving

if we assume that sun is revolving and rotating around earth does sun have any characteristic

features like cold zone , heat zone, neutral zone in its area of jurisdiction while rotating on its axis

this statement has been stated because of day and night happening in the earth

now lets leave this point here and ask NASA whether it can prove the points stated by me holds

true or false

i haven't proven in my analysis that how day and night occur on earth. i have left it open because

we have to know in future what sun is all about, how it rotates on its axis . is it just like earth or is

their any other way to prove the hypothesis correct or wrong about sun rotation else revolution

their are still some more questions unanswered

is sun really rotating or not ?

does sun has a revolution or not ?

why is that sun has been assigned the task by nature to give heat to earth ?

is it sun or is it other galaxies stars who generate heat for the mother earth ?

their are endless questions unanswered by me

hence goodbye for now

hope NASA can solve this unsolved mystery which has been waging since mans inquisitive brain

about astronomy

happy analysis by yourself

continuation of earth stationary

another point i thought about was that if it is solar eclipse or lunar eclipse if earth is rovolving or
rotating they do occur but through previous logical reasoning earth is stationary
hence can we predict that our moon is rotating and revolving around earth or sun

if moon is revolving around sun or earth because of revolution of earth moon revolution cannot be
fixed it should change with the change of earth revolution distance

hence very interesting question is moon revolving around sun also or is it true that it revolves only
around earth ?

if moon is rotating around sun through commonsense we can predict by stating that moon and sun
distance must be closing together else if it is other way round and moon is travelling around earth
distance between earth and moon is coming closer together faster than distance between moon and
sun

by predicting that moon is revolving either along with sun or earth or both

now another question if earth is stationary and moon is rotating or revolving how can we say that we
landed on moon

that means again through commonsense which i used earlier holds true moon is also stationary

how does solar , lunar eclipse occur

according to solar , lunar eclipse earth or moon come in between either sun and earth or sun and
moon

is it now a question raised that was it moon or was it some other planet or star that came in between
sun and earth

for example if we assume that moon is coming in between sun and earth , moon is a full moon and not
partial moon but it is also stated that this lunar or solar eclipse occur only on certain locations of earth
not entirely

how is this possible ?

if we calculated the lunar , solar eclipse we actually have calculated the distance of revolution of either
or all the three sun, moon and earth

another question if we predicted sun, moon and earth on what basis have we calculated their distance
without knowing their revolution distance length

and again how did we calculated the 365 1/4 time based upon revolution of earth

another question sun rises in the east sets in the west

moon rises in the west sets in the east

how ?

is it again a statement that even sun is stationary or not

experiment starts

Earth is stationary

the next part is that if moon comes in between earth and sun it is solar eclipse
if earth comes in between moon and sun it forms lunar eclipse

hence moon rises in the west and sets in the east

sun rises in the east and sets in the west

hence if both come together at one straight line because of moon rising in the east and sets in the
west and sun rises in the east and sets in the west if it comes in straight line then lunar , solar eclipse
occur otherwise it is normal setting and rising of both sun and earth

is it then true that which one is rotating or revolving

hundred dollar question

hypothesis : if it is true lunar, solar eclipse normally occur only in afternoon

if suppose we want to know whether rotation or revolution occur it can be known but how much
distance can one go in space to see the difference

commonsense says that even if we go far away as sun even then we cannot see the rotation ,
revolution of the sun

again we can say this because from earth we cannot see rotation , revolution of sun or we have to
assume the other way round saying sun is stationary

we keep the option open that sun is either rotating or revolving or stationary

one other area to be covered

is light produced by man is enough to tell us about the light of sun which is emnating

hypothesis : suns light has to have other properties compared to light produced in laboratory
experiments

solar energy

one can also prove that earth and other planets are stationary on the pretext that if the telescopes ha
vent changed their locations and have been stationed throughout their lifespan we can prove that
planets are stationary and not revolving

it is so because if planets are revolving telescopes have to be changed frequently depending upon the
location of planets which the telescope is watching

lets see further if i have the news through commonsense

earth is stationary

another theory holds good that if asteroids regularly fall on the earth then earth must also be stationary

their is a theory behind asteroids

NASA proved that asteroids travelled in space in seconds

how did they prove it and how was it recorded

if telescopes were used to see the asteroids they should be moving with asteroids per second basis
but it is not true because per second is too much less than normal speed
are our telescopes powerful enough to record per second basis, if it is true NASA must be given
kudos.

another question arises

are asteroids also stationary or moving

it can be proved moving because NASA itself says that small lumps of asteroids do fall on earth

amazing fact about this is that with so many man made spacecrafts passed through the asteroids
which were between earth and mars and not even one space ship got destroyed

is it not amazement ?

one can prove through explanation that asteroids can be stationary , it is so through a simple test

suppose you are travelling in a train and another train is stationary what do you guess

you guess that either our train is stationary but if you know it is moving you assume that the train which
is also stationary is also moving along

in the same way a spaceship moves with the same velocity and either side their are asteroids we can
assume that through spaceship we understand that asteroids are also traveling with spaceship

just analyse it for me

i still haven't proved that how come asteroids fall on earth if asteroids are stationary

now question arises about day and night in earth

it can be said through dust particles being present in the air absorption of sunlight is done

in space we cannot find whether sun exists or not because space is dark without any substance
present to absorb the sunlight

explore cornea, something has been left out

Earth is stationary

If earth is revolving on its axis how come their is extension of sunlight in summer and decrease in
sunlight in winter. if earth is revolving summer and winter should be different because of elliptical orbit

this again puts us back to notion is that is earth really revolving

does earth come closer and farther away from sun while revolving if it is true we have to assume that
earth is revolving around sun or sun is revolving or rotating

what is role of stars in the other galaxies regarding change in temperature zone of earth

do they affect the earth temperature

is the sun only medium to get heated for earth or what happens at night time when sun is not their

positions of north pole south pole has never been questioned by the scientist

can we assume that earth is stationary

if earth is revolving or rotating positions of north pole , south pole has to change with the change in
position of earth which is both rotating or revolving
hence we come back to same notion that earth is stationary

this point also states that stars are by nature again stationary

again we can prove that stars are also stationary because i assume that telescopes haven't been
changed from their original position of observations

now what to do i am proving to the world again and again stating everything in this universe is
stationary and not moving

is it true or false based upon commonsense observation i have proven

change in summer and winter question how to solve it through common sense

i have proven that it is revolution of the earth

is it true other cases i have proven through common sense that earth is stationary

coming to this point i have proven earth is revolving or sun is revolving now how to prove earth is
revolving in universe or not or sun is revolving lets see

one thing is for sure we cant send any space ship to sun now what to do

distance between the planets can prove that whether their is revolution between planets or not

one has to prove whether this distance between planets keep changing or not through observation to
prove revolution of the planets

but i also stated that Venus location hasn't been changed if observation laboratory hasn't changed so
we can predict that Venus is stationary and other planets are also stationary

coming back to meteorites or asteroids falling on the earth , we predicted it by looking at meteorites
falling on the earth after they have fallen not when they were falling

this can also mean that formation of meteorites can also happen with the condensation of lava that
was flown out of earths crust

this lava condensation can be proven correct if their exists active , dormant, sleeping volcanoes in the
surrounding area where the meteorite was found

happy reading

Earth is stationary

if you are looking at cornea and i said cornea has to be scrutinized properly

one thought came right now is that if the problem is cornea why is that cornea not able to absorb
sunlight in space , it can grasp matter only on planets

hence planets must possess some substance in planet by which it cornea is able to grasp the matter
of sunlight into existence

so it is some element in the atmosphere that cornea is deducting hence should cornea be scrutinized
or not

logical reasoning states that first atmosphere has to be scrutinized and cornea also has to be
scrutinized after deducting the contents of the atmosphere
preliminary question arises as to what particles are present in the atmosphere

so science states that sunlight fall on the cornea and cornea absorbs the sunlight in the form of
VIBGYOR

question now arises is their any presence of other substance other than VIBGYOR which cornea is
unable to deduct which has equal play in relation to knowing of sunlight rays and observation of
universe

combination of VIBGYOR, it is because science has predicted that if entire VIBGYOR is absorbed by
cornea white light forms and if entire VIBGYOR is not absorbed even 0%
black light is formed

so are their other lights present in sunlight which cornea is not able to deduct

if its space it is darkness

if it is planet it is in relation to atmosphere present in planets

Venus is hot , mercury is cold even though Venus is farther than sun compared to mercury

so the effect is that all planets are linked with atmospheric temperature determined by dust particles
and living organisms present in the planet that we do research upon
Q) what is radiation ?

radiation is sending out of waves of energy

distance between waves is called wavelength
number of waves passing a given point each second is called frequency
when all waves within a certain range of wavelength are grouped together is called spectrum
group with the shortest wavelength is x rays spectrum

what produces all these waves

produced naturally, machines are required

naturally made waves come from sun
in case of xrays a target must be bombarded with particles

something to think about

if natural rays are coming from sun are these natural rays are coming from other planetary bodies or
not other than sun

now how to find out

darkness is the time where sunlight falls on earth in an indirect method or through lesser extent
directly. if their is no sunlight directly the light that moonlight has fallen comes from external source
which means their is light coming from other than sunlight

now how to find out which external source is generating light for earth other than sun

go to the space station and check out the light properties , if it tallies with sunlight properties it is sun
otherwise it is some other unknown source

how to collect this light properties

space has vaccum but it is said that light also travels in vaccum hence testtube but this testtube if is
visible in space which is vaccum testtube has light included in it
hypothesis :

but is this testtube visibility is because of existence of light through batteries which are manmade or is
it natural light generated by external source

hypothesis :

is it true that sunlight travels in vaccum

if sunlight travels in vaccum why cant we see light properties in vaccum else space which is vaccum
or not

can we see it

if we suppose say that light does not travel in vaccum because of darkness in space what made nasa
think that sunlight travels in vaccum , are their any dustparticles ether properties present in vaccum i
said long time back existence of living algae , fungi etc in ether other than air which must be releasing
air particles which collect sunlight of sun etc

NASA

I) how can one say that light travels in space ?

in darkness one cannot see passage of light , even if light travels as can be evident of sunlight being
provided to earth it cannot be known through normal eye

now question arises

how did nasa defined darkness ?

II) their is no existence in prediction of earth rotation in relation to light

this means that summer, winter occurs on the basis of either rotation or revolution of earth

so sunlight exists at any given point of time

sunlight and normal experiment light must be different it is so because properties generated by nature
and by human being has to be different if it is not we cannot differentiate between the two

VIBGYOR analysis may determine the existence of sunlight

question again is arising as to whether sunlight is from sun or is it a combination of all stars present in
the universe

the prediction that light takes 8 minutes to reach the earth is miscalculation

8 minutes has been determined by the laboratory experiment and not through light years travelling so
light is into existence even though darkness is their in one side of earth

it is said that light exists even if earth rotates

how much time is required by suns light to become a vibgyor ?

at the time of vibgyor formation suns light becomes lesser than usual

is it negation that sun and earth revolution changing ?

moon earth and sun coming closer to each other

hypothesis :

1 closer the planets distance together greater the gravitational pull

2 bigger the distance of planets lesser the gravitational pull

sun revolves and rotates on its axis

sun revolves around the earth

earth revolves around the sun

suns revolution touches earth revolution or not

planets attract each other

pluto revolution or rotation must be faster than earth if it is universe is expanding

according to hubble universe is expanding but as for me if universe is expanding and further the
planets from each other the faster it moves , hence to prove it can be said that if pluto rotation or
revolution is faster than earth and is proved then universe is expanding can be proved correct

how would you prove that galaxies are expanding or space is expanding

comparision : 30 kms per second earth

pluto must be faster than this

manifestation is a discovery and not creation

it is just like whether hen came first or egg

is sun rotation and changing its revolution pattern because of gravity pull between sun and planets

are planets also changing their revolution

it has been stated that earth and sun coming close together

can be proven by increase of summer and decrease in winter

so either suns revolution or earths revolution is changing

how are rats formed ?

rats are never found in places other than dirt, only where cleanliness is maintained rats aren’t seen

where are apes found ?

apes are not found anywhere hence how can all human beings are formed out of apes

apes are all similar but men , women are different colors staying in different countries

DNA formation

if you are correcting DNA, you are correcting the human anatomy

what happened to dolly ?

4) are stars also helping sun to generate sunlight or not ?

5) taking of air sample from moon (ether)

if one has taken a sample from moon air ether is still present in the air , hence even micro organisms
can also be present in the vaccum of air that is being collected in the sample of moon air

then question arises as to

does metals/ test tubes have air in vaccum

water droplets , moisture , humidity

metals which have vaccum space inside what happens to them( metals)

metals make sound and for sound creation what is required ?

in vaccum can we create sound ?

metals once alone dont make sound

but when metals touch each other they produce sound

even if sound is created by moving of metals it cant be heard unless it is closer to ear drums

how did oxygen formed on earth ?

how can you say oxygen content is 16% on average

why is sunlight falling only on

partly moon or on

full moon

if sunlight falls on the earth how is earth able to absorb sunlight ?

is sunlight occuring in the same way as is seen in moon ?

one of the most thought provoking question is that

if satellites man made is rotating around earth

can we say that earth is stationary

if we want to compare about sunlight how it is absorbed by the planets we have to compare the soil of
one planet with earths soil

hypothesis : both the planets say mars soil and earths soil has to be same because both absorb the
sunlight

to do research in science of planets choose a place where moisture content of planet is greater it is to
see that living organisms can be easily be determined about living species and can be compared with
living species of earth

eg bacteria , fungi etc

important
another project is earth is falling down or towards some source can be sun

if earth is falling down what are the repurcusions

one as of now is change in climate

suppose earth is falling towards sun suns heat summer should increase and winter too must become
chilly which means to say that earth is stationary as per my previous recording and earth is moving
towards sun or planetary system other than sun by changing is place

hypothesis : if summer is increasing earth is coming closer and if it is coming closer to sun
gravitational pull between together is strong

it can be evident even with other planets

if earth is falling it negates the question as to whether earth is stationary or not hence we can also
come to conclusion that this change in earths position can be very nominal for us to find out say 1 km
change in 100 years time , we have to still do a study as to whether this change is happening or not

if earth is falling down or towards sun magnetic forces play an important role

this magnetic forces between planets attract if they are closer together but don’t come to each other if
magnetic forces are not strong enough

hence we can say this by taking into consideration two magnets and see each other how they attract
and move towards each other, the speed is fast enough when near and it is slow when far away

it also means that if earth comes closer to sun suppose it is the attracting source when it comes near
to sun its falling on sun is fast enough to fall directly on sun

hypothesis :as earth is now far from sun,magnetic forces are slow

question another arises as to why gravitational pull of moon is smaller when compared with earth
gravitational pull

hypothesis : telescopes on moon cannot determine the sunlight falling on earth

if we want to see whether sun is rotating in its axis the solution is to check out the sun spots whether
they are changing or not

hypothesis : illuminated side of earth always faces the moon

it is because illuminated side of moon faces earth

we will check this hypothesis later

Astronomy

Ideas about universe

 Jagadish

1) Does pole star remain constant in the sky and does other stars disappear but
does pole star remain their even when stars others disappear

2) big bang theory can be negated on the basis of four points

a) if everything comes from the source the source has to be bigger than the
summation of entire units coming out of it example sun has to be bigger than the
sum total of the planets observed stating if that sun is the source of big bang

b) if big bang theory is proven correct even now some elements in the sky has to
come into existence which must be seen through telescope or observed from
certain observation points

c) if all planets have come into existence from one source, that source has to be
brighter that means all the planets must have same color, different sizes hence
mars cannot be of different color compared to earth, venus,

d) also rock soil has to be similar in all planets with same micro organisms hence
again big bang theory holds invalid .unless something related to gravity pull
explained further below than below points- with certain assumptions

3) in eclipse if earth comes in between sun and moon moon disappears but does
this eclipse happen in the night or daylight also it happens or not. This eclipse
can easily been seen in the night time because of clear sky

hypothesis : is earth comes into middle between sun and moon even in daylight and in
night time when moon is not visible.

4) can we term the satellites or moons as planets if we consider them not as

satellites but as stationary planets staying close to each other along with the
bigger planet

example :- Jupiter with its planetary moons

one can term this moons as stationary based upon the distance change between the
planets moon when seen from the earth taking into consideration that if the distance
between the moons of Jupiter hasn’t changed their distance between them it can be
termed again that the moons of Jupiter is stationary
hypothesis : Jupiter and other planets moons are equidistant from each other and not
changing their distance from each other

it should also be noted that no too moons of a planet can move at same speed either in
rotation or revolution hence if distance between two moons is same it means that moons
of that planet are stationary

moon can be termed as stationary based upon how many days it covered to reach moon
from earth . if the length of the days covered to reach moon hasn’t changed at any given
point of time while traveling towards moon we can term it as stationary moon.

5) we can say that stars are stationary on the pretext that the astrology moon signs
and sun signs haven’t changed their direction so we can say that stars do not fall
on themselves nor they change their positions every now and then .

Example Capricorn, Leo, cancer etc these star formations haven’t been deformed with
passage of time when they were created by men to understand astrology way long time
back.

6) all matter are present in gas, liquid, solid state. For earth to come into existence
also must in the form of matter that means its in solid state, now question arises
as to how did it come into solid state matter, so big bang theory holds true but
above I stated that big bang theory can never be come into existence because of
above 2 factors

then how did earth come into existence

7) are stars twinkling or not , to find out it has to be noted that all stars do not
twinkle I mean to say is that at certain times in the sky stars are not seen why ?

it can be stated that whether stars are getting light from external source or not or
only pole star exists and others diminish with passage of time either by themselves
or through external source.

Hypothesis: Stars twinkling is not uniform

Expanding universe

Jagadish
 1) luminosity of stars cannot be same because of different sizes of stars

hypothesis: No two stars cannot be same

2) to find out the size of the star spectrum of the star was taken into consideration
and color of the light but does this color of light common to all stars if this
color of light emanating out of the stars when observed is not common they
have been born out of different material and not from one common source

hypothesis : no two stars have same color because they are not same and are being born
from different sources of material found in galaxies

hypothesis : are two stars being formed at their origin time melt with each other to form a
big star or not

3) stars atmosphere temperature has to be same because the twinkling color of these
stars is same that is white when viewed from earth and so this luminosity of stars can be
different but debatable as to how this color of white is seen from the earth, if suppose we
go out of the earths atmosphere do these stars have the same color when viewed from
outer space of earth

Hypothesis : color of stars is of different colors based upon illumination luminosity of

stars and not same when viewed from outside earth through earth space station situated
outside earth and hence temperature of stars must also vary

4) how do you know that galaxies other than milky way do exist or not ?

milky way is our galaxy but where to find out whether the galaxy has ended or not
that too from earth with millions of stars and planets in the milky way

hypothesis : milky way is the only galaxy unless we encounter extraterrestrial

from other galaxies if at all they exist

5) expanding universe cannot be static and if it is not static it cannot be

stationary but we earlier talked about that planets comets stars all are
stationary and all stationary cannot move and hence universe can be termed as
static and not expanding or contracting as stated by Hubble

hypothesis: milky way is a static universe/galaxy and not expanding or contracting

universe/galaxy

6) distance between moon and earth can be calculated with distance = speed *
time
 Time can be calculated with the average number of days reaching moon from earth
*24 hours

So actually we are calculating distance from earth to planets/stars by keeping earth as

stationary

7) if universe is expanding it means that earth standing position must change it

means that earth is moving away from sun and other solar systems that again
means that earth if not stationary would mean that summer and winter changes
should happen vigorously so we can assume that universe is not expanding but
is static contrary to Hubble

8) whatever changes in temperature like global warming which is happening to

the earth is not because of expanding universe but because of our own
chemicals emanating out of human existence

GRAVITY PULL OF PLANETS

9) .as stated by Stephen hawking static universe should contract under gravity
pull but it hasn’t happened since earths existence

Hypothesis : gravity pull is restricted zone upto certain atmospheric level and not
associated with gravity pull between planets

10) this can be proved by pslv of ISRO shooting out of gravity pull of earth and
not falling back after crossing the earths atmosphere so there is no gravity pull
beyond the atmosphere of any planet including earth where nasa sent its space
shuttles to different planets for observation.

This earths gravity pull of pslv can be said to be common phenomenon to other planets
also

Hypothesis : there is no gravity pull between planets

11) if their was gravity pull between planets suppose earth and moon the distance
between them either must be expanding or contracting with each passage of
time instead of distance being same when sent space shuttles to moon. At any
given point of civilization time over the period of 10000 years of existence of
man

12) gravity pull of moon is just only 1/6th of earth gravity which means that gravity
pull of all planets stars are not same which again means that contents found in
all planets is not same because of gravity pull under each planet
hypothesis : contents of atmosphere and soil contents under each planet /stars vary with
each type of gravitational pull coming into force

13) isn’t it funny that other planets gravity pull is far lesser than earths gravity pull

for example nasa sent so many space shuttles and not a single space shuttle has fallen
down to ground level when it sent them to mars , venus, Jupiter and other planets and
while returning back could counter the gravity pull of these planets

hypothesis : other planets , stars gravity pull is lesser than earths gravity pull

what are its implications ? I don’t know but this is a fact

1) atmosphere change
2) ozone layer being present
3) absorption of sun’s heat
4) Lunar, solar eclipse. Does it happen in other planets
5) Moisture content difference
6) Cloud formations
7) Windmills
8) Deformity of mankind shape
9) Hunger
10) Water level of planets
11) Change of soil contents
12) New type of micro organisms being found in each of the planets
13) New type of elements in planets (eg: coal, lead, diamonds in earth) being formed
near the core

May be these above but have to checkout with some facts

14) Is gravity pull of planets decreasing with passage of time

Hypothesis : gravity pull of planets is decreasing with each passage of time

Sometime back I stated that gravity pull between planets cannot be their because of static
universe. Does this mean 2 things

a) either universe is static by itself or has become static with passage of time over
the period of centuries if we consider that planets are stationary without rotation
revolution

but counter questioned

was earth not static when dinasours were into existence or is it because of expanding
universe they got wiped out of existence
or was earth became static from the very day of existence when men came on earth who
is the first man women born on earth

interesting one thing is sure earth has to be static from day one because earths
temperature came to cool off by being placed from sun at right place in solar system
which benefited the manhood

now question is big bang theory correct or is it incorrect

debatable

but there is other science which counters big bang that is chaos theory

which is correct and wrong lets discuss later. have to be judged through other parameters

15) how can you determine the exact time at which big bang theory has started
what is the starting point of time if big bang theory proves correct

I agree with Stephen hawking stating that if we take time before big bang theory its
of no use because even if we take before big bang no developments have happened
before big bang so big bang theory developments as per practicality has happened
after big bang

Time taken is infinite time not to be determined but to be analysed later as to how
the cooling off of planets etc have taken place if big bang theory holds true that is
important and not before big bang to make ourselves feel comfortable for analysis
sake

16) As per two refugees of nazi occupied suggested in 1948 herman bondi and
Thomas gold they stated that as universe is expanding in between the spaces of
galaxy new galaxies were being formed

This theory can hold good if nasa comes out with some observations of its own

Hypothesis : galaxies are stationary as all planets are

17) radio sources emiting out may lie within our galaxy or lie outside galaxy
this can be argued that if we cannot determine that other than milky way there is no
galaxy then radio waves are being emited out are within our galaxy otherwise if
extraterrestrial animals are found outside our galaxy it would hold true that radio waves
are outside galaxy

research is required

personally if anybody asks me I would state that milky way is the only galaxy because
there is no boundary wall for this galaxy seen from any corner of the galaxy points

hypothesis : milky way is the only galaxy known to human kind and other galaxies
discussed by astronomers like nasa are actually debating on the existence of our own
galaxy from a distance

nasa still has to confirm in its website whether other galaxies exist and seen or not

18) one more thing because of our technology radio waves are being emited out by
the earth because of the existence of man made satellites . it can be argued that
radio waves must have been created only by the mankind and emiting out radio
waves to the galaxy because of man made satellites

hypothesis : it states that radio waves being emanated out by the earth to the galaxy is
because of the existence of man made satellites and not radio waves exist in galaxy other
than earth

19) what happens to planetary bodies once their gravity pull gets decrease or cease
to exist

hypothesis : planetary bodies get destroyed and cease to exist for animals and later on
shrink in size

example : take human beings

Clouds

1) are clouds affected by gravity, if yes why dont they fall down, how much weight is
their of clouds, are they weightless then how do they bring about rain and that only
through rain bearing clouds , other than this other clouds dont bear rain why

hypothesis : clouds change themselves by becoming rain bearing because of

accumulation storage of rain droplets in them

what is the use of other clouds for earth, nature is not stupid to create multiple clouds
it has been checked that rain bearing clouds are formed because of accumulation of water
droplets inside the cloud and when they become heavy fall on earth as rain

2) some clouds bear rain, water droplets are formed in the early morning , why not in
afternoon, late day when sun appears they disappear because of suns heat but if suns heat
is the reason what temperature makes the water droplets appear and dissapear

3) if we can find out the temperature when water droplets are formed it can lead to maybe
how clouds are formed

hypothesis : water droplets are the source for formation of clouds

4) can water droplets in the form of clouds if formed by man made can it solve radiation
of heat and ozone formation

hypothesis : water droplets through dispersion of light and cloud formation can save
ozone layer

5) why cant we see clouds every day why are they present and not present sometimes

hypothesis : pollution increase and lack of trees are the real cause of lack of clouds

eg : can we check this out while one visit chirapunji

Stratus is a large dark low cloud deck that tends to form when a stable cool air mass is
trapped underneath a warm air mass. It can also form due to the lifting of advection fog
during breezy conditions. Clouds can also be formed due to lifting over mountains and
other topography

6) if this is the case how can one differentiate between the starting point of both warm
and cold air

hypothesis : formation of cloud is the starting point of hot and cold air

7) how did one differentiate between the types of earths atmosphere and how could one
give the distance between each stage of atmosphere isnt it strange

hypothesis : earths atmoshpere can be differentiated only by the basis of density of air

is it true that earths atmosphere category was checked out on the basis of density of air or
was it other way

ETHER
what is ether : it is one which is in vaccum where prescence of wind is not their

what happens if ether is present ? or mean to say what is ether wind is it into existence ?

it is into existence is debatable because we ourselves are comparing it with wind

assumption can be made that ether is something different from wind properties

it ether is not wind what can we assume

we can assume that ether doesnt have velocity as wind , it is stationary

so when light travels in ether their is no existence of wind force as is evident when we
talk about wind

this can be stated as light when travels inside ether, ether doesnt show properties of wind

light travels at the same speed when it travels in normal way without any obstruction to
its path

what is present in ether :?

we can assume that 2 properties

one either cornea of eye hasnt been scrutinised properly to know how sunlight is
observed through eyes

or second their may exist micro organisms like algae , fungi, bacteria in that vacant space
which is helping the light to travel inside the empty space vaccum that is created by
removing air

are these micro organisms emnating some sound which we cannot hear and is this noise
is affecting the light properties which cannot be checked

at which mega hertz can we hear the sound of micro organisms ?

we can assume with as assumption

and that assumption can be

1 the higher the brain evolution lower the wavelength

2 the lower the brain evolution higher the wavelength

it can be assumed in this way by noting that human ear can hear at 20 to 20000 mega
hertz
so it can also be assumed in the other way also that

1 higher the brain evolution higher the brain wavelength

2 lower the brain evolution the lower the brain wavelength

but if we assume through commonsense we can come to conclusion that brain of human
beings and monkeys can be heard to the normal ear , they are supposed to be evolved so
question arises as to which assumption above helds true

the sound of ants can be known only through some experiments

it is also known that sound of mosquitoes cant be heard unless they come closer to your
ear

when they are far away their sound cannot be known

again coming to same question again

1 higher the brain evolution higher the wavelength to be caught

2 lower the brain evolution lower the wavelength to be caught

or the other way

how can we prove through common sense

it can be known through tough brain strength wavelength

if we experiment the one who has more knowledge feels always that brain wavelenth is
very tough to comprehend the news which is complex brain gets , it becomes easy for the
brain to comprehend which is small information to get when wavelength of that person is
tough

and if the above example is true higher brain strength is denoted by higher mental
wavelength

so we can assume and start the experiment by first exploring the assumption of

1 higher the brain evolution higher the brain wavelength

2 lower the brain evolution lower the brain wavelength

so through common sense we can prove that

1 higher the brain evolution higher the wavelength

2 lower the brain evolution lower the wavelength

hence the second assumption can be proved to be true

it has to be now proved through experiments