Origins of the UNIVERSE

[FieryIce]

The Latin Vulgate, Great Bible (1539), Douay Bible (1609-1610), Moscow Patriarchate (1956), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops Bible (1568), King James Version (1611), Revised Standard Version (1957) and the New Revised Standard Version (1989) all contain those questions posed to Ezra.

Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apocrypha, An American Translation, published October 1938 and The Complete Bible, An American Translation, October 1939

Honestly, for intelligent posters or putting yourselves forward as intelligent, I can’t fathom how you cannot see what is in front of your nose in black & white or of the simplest search for data.

[craterchains]

These responces remind me of the "propeller-heads" of the south pacific, they aint got a clue as to what, or whom, it is that they "worship".

I am sorry that we even mentioned any of this.

Norval

[toejam]

The Latin Vulgate, Great Bible (1539), Douay Bible (1609-1610), Moscow Patriarchate (1956), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishops Bible (1568), King James Version (1611), Revised Standard Version (1957) and the New Revised Standard Version (1989) all contain those questions posed to Ezra.

Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apocrypha, An American Translation, published October 1938 and The Complete Bible, An American Translation, October 1939

Honestly, for intelligent posters or putting yourselves forward as intelligent, I can’t fathom how you cannot see what is in front of your nose in black & white or of the simplest search for data.

If you are after religious discussions go to

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php

Big forum. But maybe you're there under some other name?

[mybluecowboy]

BMAONE23,
Here are two links that may help you...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/apocrypha_exp.html

Craterchains,

Who said anything about who I worship or don't, how is it that no one except the two of you understand what you are talking about and niether of you want to give any actual information, just a lot of nonsence. Your continued reference to anyone's lack of intellegence w/o your willingness to explain, only appears that you are defending your self when you are not being attacked. If you expect any one to believe your point of view, insulting them is not going to make it happen, niether is your complete lack of willingness to provide anything more than some random verses from a book that gets very little in the way of credibility. I am not looking at any of this from a religious standpoint, but you have yet to give any info other than one verse and some put downs.

Fireyice,

Ezra and Esdras are not the same, try not to compare to things that are not the same. You both expect everyone to just see this technology thing and the only scripture you can give to back up what you are suggesting is something very vague and with out a lot of serious weight in acceptability.

[craterchains]

Don't worry about, ,

be happy.

Norval

[FieryIce]

BMAONE23,
Here are two links that may help you...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/apocrypha.html

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/apocrypha_exp.html

Craterchains,

Who said anything about who I worship or don't, how is it that no one except the two of you understand what you are talking about and niether of you want to give any actual information, just a lot of nonsence. Your continued reference to anyone's lack of intellegence w/o your willingness to explain, only appears that you are defending your self when you are not being attacked. If you expect any one to believe your point of view, insulting them is not going to make it happen, niether is your complete lack of willingness to provide anything more than some random verses from a book that gets very little in the way of credibility. I am not looking at any of this from a religious standpoint, but you have yet to give any info other than one verse and some put downs.

Fireyice,

Ezra and Esdras are not the same, try not to compare to things that are not the same. You both expect everyone to just see this technology thing and the only scripture you can give to back up what you are suggesting is something very vague and with out a lot of serious weight in acceptability.

You are making accusations that are complete lies and you should not comment on something if you do not know what you’re discussing. Your logic is totally asinine, the only confusion of who Ezra was and what Esdras is, is your own confusion.
You are taking this thread completely off topic, which has been proven to be STDD. You’re wasting everyone’s time and effort, and frankly you’re not worth it.

[BMAONE23]

Thanks cowboy,
They finally led me to the information that I was looking for. Now all i have to do is read through it.

[harry]

Hello All


Where and when did it all begin?

It never had a start.

How can a universe be infinite with a start?

Its only man's central opinion that creates models that fit his EGO.

If GOD created the universe without out a start.

Than the question is.

How does it work?

If GOD did not create the universe.

The same question

How does it work?

This is where man comes in and tries to find the answer.

[cosmo_uk]

I take your point harry that in some way the big bang and fine tuning of certain parameters does sound a bit like humans have an over inflated opinion of themselves. Interestingly though it is such weak and strong anthropic principles which astronomers and theoretical mathematicians are uncomfortable with. It does seem a cop out to say the reason why everything is like it is is because if it wasn't we wouldn't be here to comment but as it stands that is the case. For this not to be true a theory would have to be developed that could make the various physical constants (c, Mp etc) as they are now but without any need for prior tuning. Obviously there are several multiverse type explanations that sort of get round this. Your steady state universe would still have these tuning problems so that is no reason to choose this over the big bang. Especially considering there is a mountain of evidence for the big bang and no credible evidence what so ever for the steady state.

[harry]

Hello Cosmo

Mounatain of evidence for the Big Bang.

Lets look at the evidence.

------------------------------------------------------
A New Non-Doppler Redshift
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics
National Research Council, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0R6
Updated from: Physics Essays, Vol. 1, No: 1, p. 24-32, 1988
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html
New Verification and Supporting Evidence.

Several new papers with experimental proofs supporting the energy loss of photons due to the traces of hydrogen in space have been published more recently. For example, a paper entitled: The Cosmological Constant and the Red Shift of Quasars (27), explains the consequences of a redshift due the traces of hydrogen in outer space. Furthermore, another paper entitled: Non-Doppler Redshift of Some Galactic Object" (28) shows that the difference of redshift between the components of binary stars systems can only be explained by the difference of temperature responsible for the change of coherence of blackbody radiation as explained above. Furthermore, that same paper shows that the K effect and other astronomical observations require that photons are redshifted when moving through traces of hydrogen gas. Also, the solar atmosphere shows a redshift which varies as a function of the radial distance as seen from he Earth. That is explained in the paper(29): "Redshift of Spectral Lines in the Sun's Chromosphere". That redshift remained unexplainable until it was realized that the hydrogen in the solar atmosphere has exactly the correct concentration to explain its redshift (as explained above). Finally, various other descriptions of that phenomena have been presented (30).

A New Non-Doppler Redshift.

There are now 109 QSO’s for which the redshift value Z has been determined independently both in emission as well as in absorption. In all 109 cases, the emission redshift is different from the absorption shift (for one and the same object).
This is clearly contrary to the Doppler hypothesis.
Many more observations lead to results, which are incompatible with the interpretation that redshifts are due to relative velocity.
This book shows that taking into account the change in momentum of the electrons of gas molecules scattering light in space leads to bremsstrahlung and a slightly inelastic forward scattering.
This is the first Non-Doppler redshift theory, which when combined with the usual Doppler phenomenon, would explain consistently all spectral shifts observed in astronomy.

===============================================
The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang

http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16

(1) Static universe models fit observational data better than expanding universe models.

(2) The microwave “background” makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.

(3) Element abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work

(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed “walls” and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.

(5) The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their average apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.

6) The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.


(7) The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform


(8) Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.

(9) The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the highest-redshift quasars.


(10) If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

Anyone doubting the Big Bang in its present form (which includes most astronomy-interested people outside the field of astronomy, according to one recent survey) would have good cause for that opinion and could easily defend such a position. This is a fundamentally different matter than proving the Big Bang did not happen, which would be proving a negative – something that is normally impossible. (E.g., we cannot prove that Santa Claus does not exist.) The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory.

eginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated[/quote]


Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
By Paul Marmet (1932-2005)
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html

It is widely believed among scientists that the universe originated from an extremely dense concentration of material. The original expansion of this material is described as the Big Bang. Although the primeval soup is thought to have originated at zero volume, quantum physics considerations require that it could not be described before its diameter in centimeter reached about 10-33 (that is, 1-billion-trillion-trillionth cm). This means that the universe, then expanding at near the speed of light, was about 10-43 second old.
After that instant, according to the Big Bang theory, the universe kept expanding and became many billions of billions of times (on the order of 1020 times) larger and older, until it reached the size of an electron that has a radius of approximately 10-13 cm, when the universe was 10-23 second old. During the following 15 billion years, according to the theory, the universe expanded to a radius of 15 billion light-years to the size it is claimed today. (A light-year, the distance traversed by light in a vacuum in one year, is 9.5 ´ 1012 kilometers.)

The author (center) with the organizers of the Feb. 1989 Plasma Universe conference in La Jolla, Calif., Nobel laureate Hannes Alfvén (right) and Anthony Peratt of Los Alamos National Laboratory (left).

These are the dimensions and time scale required by the Big bang model, a model that has certainly not been accepted by all scientists because it leads to insurmountable difficulties. Prominent scientists like R. L. Millikan and Edwin Hubble thought that the Big Bang model created more problems for cosmology than it solved, and that photon energy loss was a simpler and "less irrational" explanation of the redshift than its interpretation as a Doppler effect caused by recessional velocity, in keeping with the Big Bang (Reber 1989; Hubble 1937).

In more recent years, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén, and other students of astrophysical plasma have challenged the Big Bang with an alternative conception called Plasma Universe. In this cosmology, the universe has always existed and has never been concentrated in a point; galaxies and clusters of galaxies are shaped not only by gravity, but by electrical and magnetic fields over longer times that available in the Big Bang model (Peratt 1988, 1989; Bostick 1989).

T

he Redshift.
A large number of redshift observations cannot be explained by the Doppler theory. Astronomer Halton Arp's 1987 book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" provides an extensive review of them, as does a lengthy 1989 review article by the Indian astrophysicist J. V. Narlikar. A catalogue of 780 references to redshift observations inexplicable by the Doppler effect was published in 1981 by K. J. Reboul under the title, "Untrivial Redshifts: A Bibliographical Catalogue". Many other papers indicate that non-velocity produced redshifts have been observed.
A non-Doppler interpretation of the redshift actually leads to better agreement of theory with the actual observations

Light Element Production.
It is not necessary to invoke a Big Bang in order to explain the observed abundances of light elements. A plasma model of galaxy formation accomplishes the task very well (Rees 1978; Lerner 1989). The plasma model shows that the elements are produced during galaxy formation in their observed abundances by early massive and intermediate stars. The nuclear reactions and cosmic rays generated in and by these stars lead to production of the elements. As a recent reviewer of plasma theory wrote, the plasma model: "accounts accurately for the observed overabundance of oxygen in the lowest metallicity stars, and deuterium, and does not over-produce the remaining rare light elements - lithium, beryllium, and boron" (Lerner 1989).

Cosmic Background Radiation.
The existence of the 3 K microwave radiation is no longer valid evidence for the Big Bang. There is no need to assume, as Big Bang believers do, that this background radiation came from a highly Doppler-redshifted blackbody(3)at about 3,000. K - that is, from the exploding ball of matter - when its density became low enough for energy and matter to decouple. The background radiation is simply Planck's blackbody radiation emitted by our unlimited universe that is also at a temperature of about 3 K (Marmet 1988).
The inhomogeneity of matter in the universe today means that there should be some inhomogeneity in the cosmic background radiation if it originated in a Big Bang. But no fundamental inhomogeneity in the background has been clearly found, despite tests that are sensitive down to small scales. Matter is concentrated in galaxies, in clusters and super clusters of galaxies, and in what has been called the Great Attractor (a tentatively identified but huge concentration of mass centered 150 million light-years away). These important inhomogeneities in the composition of the universe as we see it today must have first appeared in the early universe (if it exists). In fact, a comparable inhomogeneity must have existed in the matter that emitted the 3 K radiation. That inhomogeneity must appear as a distortion in the Hubble flow(4) (Dressler 1989) and must lead to observable irregularities in the 3 K background. Inhomogeneities in the 3 K radiation have been looked for but nothing is compatible with the mass observed in the Great Attractor. A. E. Lange recently reported that there is no observable inhomogeneity even with a resolution of 10 seconds of arc and a sensitivity in temperature as high as DT=± 0.00001 K (Lange 1989).
Nor can Einstein's general theory of relativity be applied in a consistent manner to the Big Bang model. According to the model, when the universe was the size of an electron and was 10-23 second old, it was clearly a black hole - a concentration of mass so great that its self-gravitation would prevent the escape of any mass or radiation. Consequently, according to Einsteinian relativity, it could not have expanded. Therefore, one would have to assume that gravity started to exist only gradually after the creation of the universe, but that amounts to changing the laws of physics arbitrarily to save the Big Bang model. In contrast, a stable universe as suggested here agrees with Einstein's relativity theory, taking into account the cosmological constant(5) he proposed in 1917.
Recent astronomical discoveries pose an additional and very serious problem for the Big Bang theory. Larger and larger structures are being found to exist at greater and greater redshifts, indicating their existence in the increasingly distant past. (Whether one assumes the Big Bang or the theory presented here, the redshift is normally an indicator of distances, and because it takes time for light to travel, the image of a highly redshifted object is seen on Earth today as it was when the light began to travel.)
In 1988, Simon Lilly of the university of Hawaii reported the discovery of a mature galaxy at the enormous redshift of 3.4; that is, the amount of the redshift for any spectral line from the galaxy is 340 per cent of the line's proper wavelength (Lilly 1988). This puts the galaxy so far in time that the Big Bang scheme does not allow sufficient time for its formation! In a news report on Lilly's work, Sky & Telescope reports: "The appearance of a mature galaxy so soon after the Big Bang poses a serious threat . . ." (Aug. 1988, p. 124).
In 1989 came the discovery of the "Great Wall" of galaxies, a sheet of Galaxies 500 million light-years long, 200 million light-years wide, and approximately 15 million light-years thick, with the dimensions of the structure being limited only by the scale of the survey (Geller and Huchra 1989). It is located between 200 and 300 million light-years from Earth. In an interview with the Boston Globe (Nov. 17 1989), Margaret Geller of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics offered some frank comments on the implications of her discovery:

The size of the structure indicates that in present theories of the formation of the universe "something is really wrong that makes a big difference,"
Geller said in an interview:
No known force could produce a structure this big in the time since the universe was formed", She said.

========================================

Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists

Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA) /
Earthtech.org

www.earthtech.org

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0302273

http://supernova.lbl.gov/~evlinder/linderteachin1.pdf

John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
Technology (USA)

James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)

Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)

Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University
(Russia)

Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)

Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)

Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)

Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)

Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)

Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)

Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)

Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)

Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)

Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio
Astronomico di Padova (Italy)

Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)

Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)

Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)

Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)

Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)

R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)

Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)

Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)

Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)

Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)

David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)

Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)

Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)

Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil

Look I can give you hundreds of cosmologists and scientists who do not think well of the Big Bang.

==========================================
Paul Marmet and Grote Reber*,
Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics,
National Research Council, Ottawa, On. Canada K1A 0R6
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

The big-bang theory was first proposed by Abbé Georges Lemaître [1]. Later, H. Hubble deduced the related constant, but as reported by Shelton [2]: "Dr. Hubble never committed himself to the theory of the expanding universe". Hubble himself in his book states [3]: "The familiar interpretation of red shifts as velocity shifts very seriously restricts not only the time scale, the age of the universe, but the spatial dimensions as well. On the other hand, the alternative possible interpretation, that red shifts are not velocity shifts, avoids both difficulties . . . ." Many prestigious scientists like R. A. Millikan agreed with Hubble when he wrote in a letter [4] dated 15 may 1953: "Personally I should agree with you that this hypothesis (tired light) is more simple and less irrational for all of us." Another prestigious scientist, Hannes Alfvén, is also challenging the orthodox view of the origin of the universe [1]. Since its origin, the big bang theory has remained an important controversy that is actively discussed in many specialized meetings [5]. Until a satisfactory model of the universe is found, the cosmological model must be reconsidered every time new observations or new considerations are brought in. It is not possible to achieve a rational choice between alternatives models when only one alternative (the big bang) is considered. We will examine here how some observations involving plasma physics in space are compatible with a recent red shift theory. We will see then how the new-tired light mechanism [6] is in agreement with many reliable observations.

===========================================
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
cosmologystatement.org

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

Hundreds os cosmologists and scientists who do not agree with The Big Bang

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

I could go on and on.

The Big Bang has no bang.

[astro_uk]

Harry I can only assume your trying to annoy everyone, you just posted the same list of ten "problems" with the BB that I destroyed a month ago.

Your list of top scientists are cranks (Arp et al.), old steady staters that still live in the 1940s (Bondi, Gold) and nobodies (Bill Peter (who?) etc). On that list are maybe 5 astronomers all of them old guys who just dont want to have to give up what they have believed for 75 years, what do 25 radar engineers know about astronomy anyway?

You could go on and on, and no doubt will. But you are yet to name one astronomer younger than 70 that works in a recognised department and has doubts about BB.

[cosmo_uk]

astro is of course correct Harry, the people you list are hasbeens and morons. I realise you have deeply held beliefs for whatever reason that the BB never happened (I'm sure you will tell me they aren't beliefs but science fact and then list a load of other urls for the flat earth society) and to be honest it doesn't matter what you believe but there is no point in saying that leading scientists agree with you as this is clearly false.

[BMAONE23]

Hasbeens and Morons?? What ever happened to Upstarts and Rogues???

The thing to consider is the simple fact that for every steady state cosmologist / astrophysisist out there, there are probably 100 or more that are Big Bangists.

100:1 Majority rule, for now.

[Dr. Skeptic]

In a kinder, more gentle way:
Steady Staters are running out of fingers to put in the dike holding back the flood of updated information. Their speculative solutions are becoming less probable with each advancement in technology.

[harry]

Hello All

Astro said

Harry I can only assume your trying to annoy everyone, you just posted the same list of ten "problems" with the BB that I destroyed a month ago

Destroyed what mate, what qualifications have you got over and above some of the famous cosmologists.

Astro I think you are using words to get over the line.

Look at every issue and discuss the issue.

If you wish to think along the lines of the Big Bang,,,,,,go right ahead.
As for annoying, mate who do you think you are.

Every person in this discussion group have a right to express their opinions.

The Big Bang has no fundations and its only time that will tell.

[Dr. Skeptic]

That is correct Harry, each has their own opinion and it appears you are having difficulties influencing others to abandon theirs. Speaking only for myself, until you answer my first question of the validity of quantum mechanics, I will keep walking away from the cliff you are running toward. Your "Big Picture" is a conglomeration of small pictures that are not coherent with known observations or the other smaller component of your picture. Some of your evidence tells a delightful story but the story lines don't line up. Imagine taking one chapter from each of your favorite books and put them into the same binding. Each of them are wonderfully written chapters by themselves yet failing to reinforce the ideas or plot of the rest, constructing an incomprehensible, non-conclusive, meaningless novel.

So Harry, what is your opinion on quantum mechanics? It’s in the table of contents along with entropy, relativity, multiple dimensions, dark matter and energy and a host of other measurable observation to reveal a coherent and complete story.

[harry]

Hello Dr Skeptic

I read your link on entropy.

I totaly disagree.

There is enough information against the Big Bang not to have it as the standard theory.

Using the Big Bang causes more problems in formulating many issues in cosmology.

But! that my opinion.

[astro_uk]

Destroyed what mate, what qualifications have you got over and above some of the famous cosmologists.

Harry your major problem is that your an outsider looking in at a world you don't fully understand. Your information comes from areas that only reinforce the predjudices you already have, you don't read anything that contradicts what you already believe. Thats why your theories are a collection of the cranks flavour of the month, add hoc assumptions, physically inpossible phenomena (matter escaping from inside a BH EH, ignoring entropy) and contradictory ideas.

The only qualification I have over major cosmologists is my youth, I'm still young enough to change my mind, Bondi and Gold are very old men who dont have that freedom any more. They are great men, vastly better theorists than myself, but it doesnt mean that they are right, they are a product of a past age and cant alter their lifes work even when it is disproven. Science as they say is a young mans/womans game. But the fact remains that the overwhelming proportion of astronomers/cosmologists have looked at the data (something you havent) and have decided that the BB fits the data comprehensively.

You seem to think I'm set in my ways Im not, I always examine my data dispationately, believe me nothing would thrill me more than finding something that disproves the BB, it would mean a Nobel prize, wealth fame and adoration far beyond what I deserve. The fact is there is no observation that has yet been made that causes any real discomfort for BB theory.

Your supposed problems unsurprisingly always appear at the edge of our understanding, as such they are merely a version of the "God in the gaps" approach, that because we cant explain everything straight away it must be wrong. The problem is that every time one of them is falsified by better data you look more and more foolish.

The fact that your still listing the age of GCs as a problem shows that you are indeed a fool, as I have pointed out I work in this area and we know for a fact that this is not a problem and in fact I do know vastly more about this area than any famous cosmologist. This was a problem when we did not understand the physics of stellar atmospheres as well as we do now. I could go on, but I think people can look back in the thread to see that the rest of the "problems" are anything but.

As for the BB having no foundations, well that is patently false. It has had 50 years of serious research by people that dont care about the outcome and its still here. Why? Because not one experiment has shown anything that contradicts it. At least it doesnt change on a daily basis as your theories do whenever some crackpot comes out with a new "neutron stars inside the sun" theory that you like the look of.

[Dr. Skeptic]

Hello Dr Skeptic

I read your link on entropy.

I totaly disagree.

There is enough information against the Big Bang not to have it as the standard theory.

Using the Big Bang causes more problems in formulating many issues in cosmology.

But! that my opinion.

OK, so you disagree on entropy, Why?

What about the other chapters?

It's all the same story, one of the rules is you don't have the liberty of omitting chapters or it becomes fiction..

Once again, if you want this to be a legitimate debate, lets start at quantum mechanics.

[harry]

Hello Dr Skeptic

OK

[harry]

Hello All

I'd like to discuss the different origins or stages of stars.

I'm troubled after reading many conventional theories and links and voids in the theories that cannot be explained.
eg: Many papers talk about collapsed cores but never explain the energy involved. They tend to go around the topic.

Two points: smile and maybe more.

One is the different compositions of star cores from atomic to neutron to quark and to preon cores and the ultimate monster that prevents light from escaping..

Second the evolution of dense matter (called black holes) and their function in forming galaxy structure and possible recycling of matter.


As many would know by now I'm not conventional.
But! thats me.

===========================================

The land of ozzzzzzzzzzz will miss Steve Irwin and thanks the world for knowing him.

[harry]

Hello All

Intersting link

Puny black holes can eject Milky Way's stars

http://www.newscientistspace.com/articl ... ef=dn10020

[harry]

Hello All

Re Link:

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/


Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

We know that the H2 molecule produces about the same (non-Doppler) redshift as monoatomic hydrogen, but the number of H2 molecules is much larger. Because atomic and molecular hydrogen have an approximately homogenous distribution in the universe, this induces a non-Doppler redshift, which is proportional to the distance of the light source (just as for an apparently expanding universe, assumed with a Doppler interpretation).
The recent discovery of an enormous quantity of molecular hydrogen not only solves the problem of missing mass; it also solves the problem of the redshift, in a non-expanding unlimited universe. The Doppler interpretation of the redshift is a variation of the Creationist theory, since it claims that the universe was created from nothing, 15 billion years ago, with a sudden Big Bang. Since a much larger amount of molecular hydrogen than previously admitted has been observed in the universe, we can now see how this hydrogen is responsible for the redshift observed. That molecular hydrogen is responsible for the redshift which is erroneously believed to have a cosmological Doppler origin.

It is unfortunate that the existence of H2 has been ignored for so long. As noted by one of the recent discoverers, E.A. Valentijn, the missing mass problem might never have arisen if the Infrared Space Observatory results (or predictions of H2) had been known earlier. It is also true that the problem would not have arisen, if the arguments presented by this author and others for the necessary presence of H, had been heeded.

With the new discovery, science can now have a logical and realistic description of nature, because we no longer have to speculate with such exotic hypotheses as WIMPs and "quark nuggets" to explain the missing matter in the universe.

[astro_uk]

There is one major piece of evidence that above link avoids.

Nearby galaxies, they are observed to have redshifts or blueshifts but have very little H2 between them and us, we can also measure the rotation curves of such galaxies. We see lots of pretty dense H2 clouds (there what forms stars) in the spiral arms of galaxies but if H2 was introducing a non doppler redshift then rotation curves could not be flat, because the H2 would be adding a non-doppler redshift to the doppler rotation component.


Slightly more worrying for the state of Canadian physics is the fact that the guy who wrote it doesn't believe in GR or as far as I can tell QM yet was

was formerly a senior researcher at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of Canada, in Ottawa, and from 1967 to 1982, he was director of the laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics at Laval University in Quebec. A past president of the Canadian Association of Physicists, Marmet also served as a member of the executive committee for the Atomic Energy Commission of Canada from 1979 to 1984.

[Qev]

Hmm, interesting article published recently might have some bearing on this particular topic. It looks like Type Ia supernovae, the best 'standard candle' for measuring cosmological distances, might actually come in more than one flavour, with differring intrinsic brightnesses.

I guess this means they're going to have to go back through their cosmological supernova observations and try to determine which type each supernova was, as this new variety can be twice as bright as the 'typical' Ia supernova.

http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Arc ... rnova.html