Bang or No Bang

[harry]

Hello Neried

I have stated to read the links you provided.

Re: Links provided by Neried

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... #structure

Before beginning the examination of the evidence surrounding current cosmology, it is important to understand what Big Bang Theory (BBT) is and is not. Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the origin of the universe. Rather, it describes the development of the universe over time. This process is often called "cosmic evolution" or "cosmological evolution"; while the terms are used by those both inside and outside the astronomical community, it is important to bear in mind that BBT is completely independent of biological evolution. Over the last several decades the basic picture of cosmology given by BBT has been generally accepted by astronomers, physicists and the wider scientific community. However, no similar consensus has been reached on ideas about the ultimate origin of the universe. This remains an area of active research and some of idea current ideas are discussed below. That said, BBT is nevertheless about origins -- the origin of matter, the origin of the elements, the origin of large scale structure, the origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, etc. All of this will be discussed in detail below.

In addition to being a theory about the origins of the basic building blocks for the world we see today, BBT is also paradoxically one of the best known theories in the general public and one of the most misunderstood (and, occasionally, misrepresented). Given the nature of the subject matter, it is also frequently discussed with heavy religious overtones. Young Earth Creationists dismiss it as an "atheistic theory", dreamt up by scientists looking to deny the divine creation account from Genesis. Conversely, Old Earth Creationists (as well as other Christians) have latched onto BBT as proof of Genesis, claiming that the theory demonstrates that the universe had an origin and did not exist at some point in the distant past. Finally, some atheists have argued that BBT rules out a creator for the universe.

The Era of First Stars Detected



http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_firststars.html

The matter in the universe condensed by gravity until the first stars ignited. WMAP has indirectly detected this event. WMAP does not see the light of the first stars directly, but has detected a polarized signal that is the tell-tale signature of the energy released by the first stars.

The first stars emitted ultraviolet light. This light was energetic enough to knock hydrogen atoms apart, the electrons separating and careening away from the protons. The newly free fog of electrons then scattered and polarized the cosmic microwave background light. The signature of this polarization is seen by WMAP today. WMAP has measured the total amount the light scattered on its path to us. From this, we can roughly reconstruct the epoch of the first stars: they began shining when the universe was about 400 million years old, 13.3 billion years ago.

Big bang sound waves explain galaxy clustering

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6871

Two independent teams mapping the universe have found that galaxies are currently slightly more likely to be 500 million light years apart than any other distance. The finding, a result of the conditions in the early universe, was announced on Tuesday at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in San Diego, California, US.

Are CMB fluctuations really
adiabatic?
or
Do we live in a flat universe?

http://www.helsinki.fi/~jvalivii/subpag ... _notes.pdf

ORIGIN OF STRUCTURE (explanation of the slide)

Basic assumption in background cosmology is that some procedure
created small initial fluctuations to otherwise homogeneous universe
during very early times. Most popular candidate for the origin of these
initial fluctuations are quantum fluctuations during inflation, which due
to rapid expansion of the horizon size were stretched to classical superhorizon
fluctuations. In the adiabatic case the energy density (curvature ) fluctuates initially while in the isocurvature case it is the entropy
density that fluctuates, but curvature remains spatially constant.

Fluctuation in energy density implies gravitational potential wells so that
more and more matter starts to flow into them. Thus, due to gravity,
the small initial density fluctuations grow with time, and finally form the
structure (galaxy clusters, galaxies, stars) we see today.

Simulating the joint evolution of quasars, galaxies and their large-scale distribution

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/millennium/

The cold dark matter model has become the leading theoretical paradigm for the formation of structure in the Universe. Together with the theory of cosmic inflation, this model makes a clear prediction for the initial conditions for structure formation and predicts that structures grow hierarchically through gravitational instability. Testing this model requires that the precise measurements delivered by galaxy surveys can be compared to robust and equally precise theoretical calculations. Here we present a novel framework for the quantitative physical interpretation of such surveys. This combines the largest simulation of the growth of dark matter structure ever carried out with new techniques for following the formation and evolution of the visible components. We show that baryon-induced features in the initial conditions of the Universe are reflected in distorted form in the low-redshift galaxy distribution, an effect that can be used to constrain the nature of dark energy with next generation surveys.

http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/galform/ ... 504097.pdf
Simulating the joint evolution of quasars, galaxies
and their large-scale distribution

Neried I read most of the papers,,,,,,,,,,I see no evidence for the formation of super clusters of clusters of galaxies to be formed in just 0.5 Gyr.

Most of the above links assume first that the BBT is correct.Than proceed to fit their information into the puzzel.

I would advice others to read the above links.

How did science get so out of wack?

[Nereid]

Just like my wife, you read into things out of context.

I ask you this, in all seriousness, and in the expectation of an honest, direct answer, because I have formed the impression - perhaps wrongly - that you dislike science as an intellectual endeavour, that you would likely rail just as vehermently against large parts of modern biology or geology or physics, in terms of well-established theories being bunk or busted and of marginal or discredited 'observations' 'proving' such theories wrong.

Yep you are wrong, so!!!!!!!! wrong.

Love science

Hello Neried

I have stated to read the links you provided.

[snip]

Most of the above links assume first that the BBT is correct.Than proceed to fit their information into the puzzel.

I would advice others to read the above links.

How did science get so out of wack?

Let's assume, for the moment, that both these quotes can be taken at face value.

Let's also remind ourselves of harry's own question (I've added the bold):

Lets pick one of the biggest super clusters and explain how it was formed and that means all within.

Lets say you have 500,000,000 Yrs to complete the project.

Pick your own model.

harry, would you mind explaining how the above posts, of yours, are consistent?

[harry]

Hello Neried

Please do not read words out of context to avoid answering a simple question and some how show logically how a super cluster of cluster of galaxies can form in .5Gyrs.

Big Bang people are good at avoiding.

Why is it so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????


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

The model of the recycling universe will take me another year.

A few missing links. One main is the formation of jets and the matter ejected whether its mostly from the compacted core or from infalling matter.

and you are right

Without evidence, maths, logical and backed up by well known cosmologists it means nothing regardless if you are right.

[makc]

[snip]

Most of the above links assume first that the BBT is correct.Than proceed to fit their information into the puzzel.

[snip]

[snip]

Let's also remind ourselves of harry's own question (I've added the bold):

[snip]

Pick your own model.

harry, would you mind explaining how the above posts, of yours, are consistent?

What is there to explain, he is quite consistent He asked you to pick your model, you did so, and he now states that you did just that.

[Nereid]

Hello Neried

Please do not read words out of context to avoid answering a simple question and some how show logically how a super cluster of cluster of galaxies can form in .5Gyrs.

Big Bang people are good at avoiding.

Why is it so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????

[snip]

Bluster is unbecoming harry.

'assume {insert hypothesis is correct} and proceed to test it against observations' is, if somewhat oversimplified, what modern science is about.

When you say 'Love science', may I assume that you concur that this is, in fact, how modern science is done?

For avoidance of doubt, unless and until we can reach an unambiguous agreement on this* core aspect of science, I feel that further discussion would be pointless.

*and, very likely given your posting history, a few other core aspects too.

[Nereid]

[snip]

Most of the above links assume first that the BBT is correct.Than proceed to fit their information into the puzzel.

[snip]

[snip]

Let's also remind ourselves of harry's own question (I've added the bold):

[snip]

Pick your own model.

harry, would you mind explaining how the above posts, of yours, are consistent?

What is there to explain, he is quite consistent He asked you to pick your model, you did so, and he now states that you did just that.

If that were all that harry wrote, in the post I quoted, then your pithy summary would be adequate.

However, harry concluded his post with this:

How did science get so out of wack [sic]?

Does this not strongly suggest harry has already decided that the way modern cosmology (and astronomy, and astrophysics, and space science) is conducted is not science?

[makc]

maybe so, but at least his appraisal remarks can be separated from things he has (or has not) to say in accordinance with your requirement:

and you are right

Without evidence, maths, logical and backed up by well known cosmologists it means nothing regardless if you are right

I mean you can ignore red thing here just as "out of wack" thing, because he's going to continue posting these remarks, you know, just to have his last word. So, since you are not banning him, why not just focus on parts that make enough sense to make an argument to, for the sake of other readers?

[harry]

Hello MakC

Do you think I'm after the last word?


With all that has gone on.

What is your opinion MakC about the universe?

You said

So, since you are not banning him, why not just focus on parts that make enough sense to make an argument to, for the sake of other readers?

This reminds me of the movie " Enemy of the town"

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

To this date not one concrete evidence has been given to support one version of the Big Bang.

When you speak to many people. Each person has their own view. Some think that the Big Bang started from one spot at the same time.
Others think it started everywhere at the same time.

Others think it started everywhere at different times.

Since its only a theory and not a fact than we will get varies views.


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

I have nothing against any model. Just as long it is explained in a way that is logical.
===========================================

One in important point from the Big Bang theory is the origin from a singularity. A black hole ejecting degenerate matter into space and forming normal matter.

This is a very powerful point in explaining the jets that eject matter from the core of black holes and explain the processes of recycling of matter.

[Nereid]

[snip]

To this date not one concrete evidence has been given to support one version of the Big Bang.

When you speak to many people. Each person has their own view. Some think that the Big Bang started from one spot at the same time.
Others think it started everywhere at the same time.

Others think it started everywhere at different times.

Since its only a theory and not a fact than we will get varies views.


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

I have nothing against any model. Just as long it is explained in a way that is logical.
===========================================

One in important point from the Big Bang theory is the origin from a singularity. A black hole ejecting degenerate matter into space and forming normal matter.

This is a very powerful point in explaining the jets that eject matter from the core of black holes and explain the processes of recycling of matter.

harry, earlier in this thread you wrote:

Hello Neried

Just like my wife, you read into things out of context.

I ask you this, in all seriousness, and in the expectation of an honest, direct answer, because I have formed the impression - perhaps wrongly - that you dislike science as an intellectual endeavour, that you would likely rail just as vehermently against large parts of modern biology or geology or physics, in terms of well-established theories being bunk or busted and of marginal or discredited 'observations' 'proving' such theories wrong.

Yep you are wrong, so!!!!!!!! wrong.

Love science

Science is not religious dogma; there are no 'eternally complete, correct answers' written in some sacred text which awaits a reader to decipher.

Thats true, but I know your limitations.

May I ask if you accept this limitation of scope? May I ask if you have any (general) questions about what any such scientific framework can, and cannot, deliver (or even promise)?

Ok. Sounds logical.

Let's take just one part of your last post:

One in important point from the Big Bang theory is the origin from a singularity. A black hole ejecting degenerate matter into space and forming normal matter.

You have stated this, many times.

Others have explained your misunderstandings, many times, in many ways.

Yet you persist in repeating this!

You have been offered the opportunity to ask questions on the scientific methods used in modern astronomy and cosmology.

You have responded by repeating your own, mistaken*, views, and have asked no questions.

How can you '[l]ove science' and at the same time so persistently and consistently seek to misunderstand, misrepresent, indeed, to murder it?

*and which mistakes have been corrected, pointed out, explained, etc, with great patience, many many times.

[makc]

Hello MakC

Do you think I'm after the last word?

This idea sounds reasonable to me right now.

What is your opinion MakC about the universe?

If you mean this Big Bang thing, I say we should build a time machine and send it back to find out what happened

This reminds me of the movie " Enemy of the town"

Sorry, haven't seen it. But, your problem with Nereid has to be resolved one way or another. Keeping it going on and on for monthes is plain ridiculous.

...mistakes have been corrected, pointed out, explained, etc, with great patience, many many times.

To Harry: In fact, Nereid seem to have some incomprehensive sympathy to you. MM was banned for lesser violations.

[harry]

Hello Neried

You said

Let's take just one part of your last post:Quote:
One in important point from the Big Bang theory is the origin from a singularity. A black hole ejecting degenerate matter into space and forming normal matter.

What do you mean I miss understood?

As per the BB where did the matter come from?

[Nereid]

Hello Neried

You said

Let's take just one part of your last post:Quote:
One in important point from the Big Bang theory is the origin from a singularity. A black hole ejecting degenerate matter into space and forming normal matter.

What do you mean I miss understood?

As per the BB where did the matter come from?

harry, in the post at the top of this page (dated 30 Oct), you wrote (I have added bolding):

Hello Neried

I have stated to read the links you provided.

Re: Links provided by Neried

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astrono ... #structure

Before beginning the examination of the evidence surrounding current cosmology, it is important to understand what Big Bang Theory (BBT) is and is not. Contrary to the common perception, BBT is not a theory about the origin of the universe. Rather, it describes the development of the universe over time. This process is often called "cosmic evolution" or "cosmological evolution"; while the terms are used by those both inside and outside the astronomical community, it is important to bear in mind that BBT is completely independent of biological evolution. Over the last several decades the basic picture of cosmology given by BBT has been generally accepted by astronomers, physicists and the wider scientific community. However, no similar consensus has been reached on ideas about the ultimate origin of the universe. This remains an area of active research and some of idea current ideas are discussed below. That said, BBT is nevertheless about origins -- the origin of matter, the origin of the elements, the origin of large scale structure, the origin of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, etc. All of this will be discussed in detail below.

[snip]

Here is the most pertinent 'later' part of that material, wrt the origin of matter:

In the very early universe, spacetime was filled with a very hot "soup" consisting of matter particles and interaction particles (quarks, electrons, positrons, photons, gluons, neutrinos, etc.). Matter and antimatter particles were created all the time from photons, gluons, etc., and disappeared again shortly thereafter. Only after the universe cooled down and thinned out was it possible for the matter and antimatter particles to survive and avoid annihilating each other immediately.

Herein lurks a major problem: according to quantum field theory, if all these reactions happened in thermal equilibrium, exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter particles should have been produced by this process. But when we observe in our universe, we find only matter and virtually no antimatter! This problem became known as the "matter-antimatter asymmetry" in cosmology.

To solve this problem, we need some manner of asymmetry between matter and antimatter. In 1967, Sakharov pointed that to generate such an asymmetry, the reactions had to happen (at least partly) in a thermal non-equilibrium. Additionally, the so-called "CP symmetry" of particle physics had to be violated (i.e. matter and antimatter had to behave slightly differently, contrary to what quantum field theory said at the time) and "baryon number" could not be conserved (Sakharov 1967).

While this outlines what needed to happen, it is not a solution in and of itself. Modern solutions to this problem depend on the so-called "electroweak symmetry breaking": at sufficiently high temperatures like those found in the early universe, the electromagnetic force and the weak force are essentially indistinguishable, uniting into a single force. As the universe cooled (below a temperature of about 1015 Kelvin and after a time of about 0.1 billionth of a second), these forces separated into the distinct forces we see today. This "phase transition" led, at least locally, to the required thermal non-equilibrium. The violation of the CP symmetry is naturally built into the electroweak theory, and at high temperature the Standard Model of particle physics also allows non-conservation of the baryon number.

There are several mis-statements in your original statement harry; let's address them one by one.

'the origin from a singularity': the embedded quote in your 30 October post already addresses this; I'm curious to know why you repeated the misunderstanding so soon afterwards - did you simply forget what you had written? or not understand the talkorigins material? or perhaps your mis-statement was quite calculated??

'A black hole': the talkorigins material also addresses this misconception; perhaps the easiest way to understand the difference is via General Relativity (GR): the scope of the BBT is the whole (observable) universe; black holes are components of that universe. Much of GR is counter-intuitive, and the concept of spacetime and 'gravity as geometry' particularly so. Here's the talkorigins material on this:

People often have difficulty with the idea that "space itself expands". An easier way to understand this concept is to think of it as the distance between any two points in the universe increasing (with some notable exceptions, as discussed below). For example, say we have two points (A and B) which are at fixed coordinate positions. In an expanding universe, we would find two remarkable things to be true. First, the distance between A and B is a function of time and second, the distance is always increasing.

To really understand what this means and how one would define "distance" in such a model, it is necessary to have some idea of what Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR) is about -- another subject that does not easily lend itself to simple explanations. One of the most popular GR textbooks by Misner, Thorne & Wheeler summarize it thusly: "Space tells matter how to move, matter tells space how to curve." Of course, this statement omits certain details of the theory, like how space also tells electromagnetic radiation how to move (demonstrated most beautifully by gravitational lensing -- the deflection of light around massive objects), how space also curves in response to energy, and how energy can cause space to do much more than simply curve. Perhaps a better (albeit longer) way of describing GR would be something like: "Energy determines the geometry and changes in the geometry of the universe, and, in turn, the geometry determines the movement of energy".

'a black hole ejecting': for starters, black holes cannot 'eject' anything; in the standard meaning of the term, nothing can be emitted from a black hole (except, perhaps, Hawking radiation). Further, as the scope of the BBT is the universe as a whole, this phrase is meaningless.

'degenerate matter': 'degeneracy' has a particular, precise meaning in physics, tied to quantum theory. As in the above quote from the talkorigins material, sufficiently early in the history of the universe (according to BBT), "spacetime was filled with a very hot "soup" consisting of matter particles and interaction particles (quarks, electrons, positrons, photons, gluons, neutrinos, etc.)" Such a soup cannot be called 'degenerate matter'!

'into space': as with 'ejecting', this is meaningless (or a serious misunderstanding); the scope of BBT is the universe as a whole; there is no 'space' outside the universe.

'and forming normal matter': as above; the details of how 'normal matter' formed, in the very early universe, are poorly understood within BBT, for the very good reason that we have very little experimental or observational results pertinent to such an extreme state ... the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) will, hopefully, help to provide some details.

harry, if you would like further clarification, of either the relevant parts of BBT or why and how you misunderstood it, please ask.

[harry]

Hello Neried

What you have stated above is general info.

You also stated that nothing is ejected from black holes, except the Hawkings radiation.

Than explain the origin of the big bang. Where did the matter come from.

And if you can explain the formation of Jets and their properties that allows them to travel millions of light years and in some cases close to the speed of light.

And please do not make the mistake that I do not understand.

Just because I do not agree with you, does not give you the right.

[Nereid]

Hello Neried

What you have stated above is general info.

What I tried to do, above, is provide a more accurate, but still highly simplified, set of statements concerning some key elements of BBT (and modern physics).

If we're going to have a discussion on what BBT is, a very bad place to start would be statements of what it is not, baldly presented as if they were statements of what it is.

You also stated that nothing is ejected from black holes, except the Hawkings radiation.

Than explain the origin of the big bang. Where did the matter come from.

First, as has been stated many times now, BBT is mute on the origin of the universe. We have gone over this point many times. It follows from the scientific nature of BBT.

I started to answer the question of what the origin of matter is, in BBT, but got sidetracked by trying to reach common ground ... without certain minimum agreed basics, we cannot have a discussion on this topic. You have stated that that minimum should include 'science'; that's good, that's the scope of this forum. However, there appear to be some serious inconsistencies in your statements (assuming, of course, that you are honest re 'science').

And if you can explain the formation of Jets and their properties that allows them to travel millions of light years and in some cases close to the speed of light.

If you're referring to objects like the M87 jet, then the answer is there is no strong consensus yet ... except that they are not 'ejected from black holes'. IIRC, we have gone over this before too, several times.

AFAIK, the jets are polar (perpendicular to the accretion disks), and the physical mechanisms for generating them include relativistic versions of MHD (magnetohydrodynamics); one stage further back in the chain of causation is the infall of matter into the super-massive black holes, via accretion disks.

And please do not make the mistake that I do not understand.

Just because I do not agree with you, does not give you the right.

In this case - statements of what BBT is, the physics of black holes, jets, and accretion disks, etc - the ultimate authority is the scientific papers presenting the relevant theories, models, hypotheses, etc ... and the corresponding ones presenting analyses of (astronomical) observations, presenting consistency (or otherwise) with those theories etc. That is the nature and scope of this internet discussion forum; if you do not accept this scope, then you may wish to reconsider your participation here.

[harry]

Hello Neried

What you say, is printed in most papers.

There is no question about it.

I feel that history is repeating itself time and time again. Standard models are formed and people stop questioning the standards and agree without going out on a limb.

Without conflict, war and hard times creative people are left hanging, so to speak.

I respect this forum and its ideas.

Before I post a series of sections on Jets. A to I

I would like you to not cancel them until we have discussed them.

Unless you want me to email them directly to you first.

Greetings from the land of ozzzzzzz

[Nereid]

Hello Neried

What you say, is printed in most papers.

There is no question about it.

I feel that history is repeating itself time and time again. Standard models are formed and people stop questioning the standards and agree without going out on a limb.

Without conflict, war and hard times creative people are left hanging, so to speak.

I respect this forum and its ideas.

Before I post a series of sections on Jets. A to I

I would like you to not cancel them until we have discussed them.

Unless you want me to email them directly to you first.

Greetings from the land of ozzzzzzz

harry, how about I, and other users, help you learn how to use The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS for short)?

That way, once you have a minimal familiarity, you can do your own research into the extent to which any material you wish to post can be shown to be derived from a paper published in a relevant peer-reviewed publication.

Of course, ADS itself is not perfect, but it's a good guide - if you can't trace your material to a paper cited in ADS, then it's quite likely that it hasn't passed muster in terms of being (astronomical) science.

[harry]

Hello Neried

I read so many papers

I will also read your link,,,,,,,,Thanks

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/

Just drooped in for a sec.

Be back later,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,have to go and pick up the kids.

[harry]

Hello Neried

As soon as I opened the link

To my surprise I have used that link before.

If you wish to rely on links through:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/

I would be more than happy.

Greetings from the land of ozzzzzzzzzzzz

[harry]

Hello All

I have been reading through the link

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/
Since this link is OK and supported by Neried to use as refrence. Here are some interesting readings.


Solar abundances of the elements

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi- ... etype=.pdf

Abstract
The isotopic compositions of noble gases in the solar wind show high enrichments of light isotopes. When corrected for mass fractionation all five noble gases there can be resolved in terms of the two primitive noble gas components that have been identified in planetary solids. Reasons are presented for assigning the fractionation to a solar process that selectively enriches lighter nuclei at the surface of the sun. When abundances of the elements at the sun's surface are corrected for this fractionation, it is shown that atomic abundances for major elements in the bulk sun are (in decreasing order): Fe, Ni, O, Si, S and Mg. Solar elements at about the 1 percent atomic abundance level include He, C, Ne, Ca and Cr. These results suggest that fusion of hydrogen is probably not the sun's primary energy source.

To what extent?

Is this against the standard model?




http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979Natur.277..615B
Isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton in Allende meteorite retain record of nucleosynthesis

Abstract
Various mixtures of r-, p- and s-nucleosynthesis products have been observed in the isotopes of tellurium, xenon and krypton extracted from mineral separates of the Allende meteorite. The presence of several isotopically distinct components in these high Z elements and the close association of isotopically normal low Z elements with particular isotopes of the high Z elements suggest that our Solar System may have formed directly from the debris of a single precursor star, approximately concentric with the present sun.

Very interesting readings

[harry]

Hello All


http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests.html
Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
The Big Bang Model is supported by a number of important observations, each of which are described in more detail on separate pages:

The expansion of the universe
Edwin Hubble's 1929 observation that galaxies were generally receding from us provided the first clue that the Big Bang theory might be right.
The abundance of the light elements H, He, Li
The Big Bang theory predicts that these light elements should have been fused from protons and neutrons in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.
The cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation
The early universe should have been very hot. The cosmic microwave background radiation is the remnant heat leftover from the Big Bang.
These three measurable signatures strongly support the notion that the our universe evolved from a dense, nearly featureless hot gas, just as the Big Bang model predicts.

Are they supported or just propt up?

[harry]

Hello Fei1702

Are you asking me out?

[makc]

That wouldn't be that easy, I think there are a mile or two between Rome and Sydney, no?

[harry]

Hello Makc

Mate,,,,,,,,Helen made 1000 ships sail

That would be bang or no bang

[BMAONE23]

Hello Fei1702

Are you asking me out?

No He is just another less than creative SPAMMER

e-made-china seems to be a spammer as well (not much content nor point of view expressed in his posts would seem like a dressed up attempt to post the hyperlink only)

[harry]

Hello BMAONE23


Thinking aloud!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have a super cluster of galaxies over a billion light years across. Take it to the next step take the observable universe being about 70 Billion light years across. Imagine the trillions of stars within. Imagine the life span of a star in one stage being about 13 billion years and that does not include the previous phases or stages. Can you imagine the complexity and size of the observable universe.

Now tell someone it just popped up just 13.7 Billion years.

Keep in mind the BBT states that the universe is evenly spread and that it popped up everywhere at the same time from singularities.


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

Cosmology Problems Big Bang
http://open-site.org/Science/Physics/Co ... s_Big_Bang