[harry]

Hello All

Neried said

On alternatives: a good many astronomers would love to have a decent alternative to the concordance model of cosmology (a.k.a. the big bang theory), but, sadly, none of ones what you will find in the many websites purporting to be such pass even the most simple of (observational) tests.

You are a moderator on this web site.

Making false statements is a big issue.

http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html
Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

I can give hundreds of links against the Big Bang and the standard model of our sun.

But without eyes to see, why should you look.

Neried I know that you are a smart cookie. Use your cookies to advance this website.

Trying to support a theory that is dead in the water is a waste of time.

[harry]

Hello All

I'm listing a few links against the Big Bang.

If these are crank pot links, please let me know.

On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611

The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in a sample of 31 clusters - a comparison between the X-ray predicted and WMAP observed CMB temperature decrement
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510160

The Hubble diagram extended to z>>1: the gamma-ray properties of GRBs confirm the Lambda-CDM model
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=.+0605430

The outermost gravitationally bound orbit around a mass clump in an expanding Universe: implication on rotation curves and dark matter halo sizes
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=.+0605611

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16

Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big... est_999.html


Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
*By Paul Marmet (1932-2005)

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html


Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm



Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html


An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/Di...ABeginning.asp


Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/



Exploding the Big Bang
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...p5/explode.htm


Redshift
Halton Arp
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm


Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html


http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V10N1ANT.pdf


More evidence for galactic "shells" or "something else"

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf080/sf080a04.htm


Two World Systems Revisited:

A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened"
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/


Recent discoveries pose more problems for Big Bang
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/


On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies
by Mark Stewart
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html

Expansion of the Universe
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#expansion

THE BIG BLACK BANG
http://www.fixall.org/bigbang/bigblackbang.htm


The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html

[Nereid]

Hello All

Neried said

On alternatives: a good many astronomers would love to have a decent alternative to the concordance model of cosmology (a.k.a. the big bang theory), but, sadly, none of ones what you will find in the many websites purporting to be such pass even the most simple of (observational) tests.

You are a moderator on this web site.

Making false statements is a big issue.

http://www.physorg.com/news76314500.html
Big Bang's Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

I can give hundreds of links against the Big Bang and the standard model of our sun.

But without eyes to see, why should you look.

Neried I know that you are a smart cookie. Use your cookies to advance this website.

Trying to support a theory that is dead in the water is a waste of time.

So let's try some elementary logic, shall we harry?

I said:

On alternatives: a good many astronomers would love to have a decent alternative to the concordance model of cosmology (a.k.a. the big bang theory), but, sadly, none of ones what you will find in the many websites purporting to be such pass even the most simple of (observational) tests.

To which you replied:

I can give hundreds of links against the Big Bang and the standard model of our sun.

This is called a non-sequitur; and underlying it may be another failure of simple logic, the false dichotomy.

Beyond this failure in simple logic, there seems to be a deeper issue - misunderstanding of science, especially astronomy and cosmology (I note that kovil also seems to misunderstand how science works too).

Perhaps we should try to clarify that?

[Nereid]

Hello All

I'm listing a few links against the Big Bang.

If these are crank pot links, please let me know.

harry, the issue is whether the material on the webpages you provide links to is scientific, within the scope of this forum.

Also, as I noted in my previous post, you seem to have some misunderstandings of the nature of science, specifically cosmology and astronomy.

On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611

The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in a sample of 31 clusters - a comparison between the X-ray predicted and WMAP observed CMB temperature decrement
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510160

The Hubble diagram extended to z>>1: the gamma-ray properties of GRBs confirm the Lambda-CDM model
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=.+0605430

The outermost gravitationally bound orbit around a mass clump in an expanding Universe: implication on rotation curves and dark matter halo sizes
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=.+0605611

I'll check these in detail later, but as they are on arXiv, they are likely to be pre-prints; whether they have yet been published, or if published, the paper is the same as the pre-print, etc are also important considerations.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp#_edn16

We have already discussed these ... the ideas may be interesting, but they fail, as science (or, if you prefer, the ideas have been debunked).

Big Bang Afterglow Fails An Intergalactic Shadow Test
http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big... est_999.html

Link does not work.

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death
*By Paul Marmet (1932-2005)

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html


Big Bang Theory Busted
By 33 Top Scientists

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm



Cosmic Matter and the Nonexpanding Universe.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/UNIVERSE/Universe.html

We have already discussed these ... the ideas may be interesting, but they fail, as science (or, if you prefer, the ideas have been debunked).

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

I think even you, harry, would acknowledge that this is not science ... after all, the document itself doesn't even claim to be science!

Did the Universe Have a Beginning?
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/Di...ABeginning.asp


Discovery of H2, in Space
Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/

We have already discussed these ... the ideas may be interesting, but they fail, as science (or, if you prefer, the ideas have been debunked).

Exploding the Big Bang
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...p5/explode.htm

Link does not work.

Redshift
Halton Arp
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

We have already discussed these ... the ideas may be interesting, but they fail, as science (or, if you prefer, the ideas have been debunked).

Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html

I'm mystified harry ... how does a page giving a biography of Hannes Alfvén equate to a "link against the Big Bang"?

Another failure of simple logic perhaps?

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V10N1ANT.pdf

Link does not work.

More evidence for galactic "shells" or "something else"

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf080/sf080a04.htm


Two World Systems Revisited:

A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang

http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened"
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/


Recent discoveries pose more problems for Big Bang
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/


On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies
by Mark Stewart
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html

Expansion of the Universe
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/#expansion

THE BIG BLACK BANG
http://www.fixall.org/bigbang/bigblackbang.htm


The Cosmological Constant and the Redshift of Quasars
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/QUASARS/Quasars.html

We have already discussed these ... the ideas may be interesting, but they fail, as science (or, if you prefer, the ideas have been debunked).

On the 24th of March, in Origins of the Universe thread, here in the Cafe, I wrote:

For the last time harry, if you wish to present this kind of material, please be prepared to defend it against challenges based on standard science-based approaches.

If you are not prepared to defend such material, please do not post it here in The Asterisk*.

If they are not and their logic is correct. That makes the Big Bang Theory the Biggest Crank theory in the last century.

Please choose one of these, any one.

Please state it, as clearly, in quantitative form, as you can.

Please be prepared to answer questions, and challenges, to it, in terms of:

a) its internal consistency

b) its consistency with well-established theories, where the domains of applicability overlap

c) (above all) its consistency with good experimental and observational results.

If you are not prepared to do this, please do not post this kind of material again.

In what way was my request ambiguous? How would you like me to clarify it?

[harry]

Hello Neried

You have been busy.

You may have discussed these links before. Others have not and so in re-discussing it allows others to take part.

I like the heading, good idea.

Sometimes new ideas need to be discussed.

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

Apart from this

I'm looking for a paper, science journal by Prof Neil Turok on the origins of the universe.

Can some help me find it.

My comp is limited on the search.

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

Neried said

Quote:
Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html

I'm mystified harry ... how does a page giving a biography of Hannes Alfvén equate to a "link against the Big Bang"?

Do I need to explain that many scientists have gone against the idea i=of the BBT and have lost their jobs.

Many scientists have gone along wth the BBT so that their cash flow remained positive.

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

Imagine if I just sat on the fence supporting the BBT. How boring.

[makc]

You may have discussed these links before. Others have not and so in re-discussing it allows others to take part.

Not so.

There are discussions here that go on naturally for a long period of time and still top forums listings (example). Then there are threads than naturally die in oblivion and therefore are burried so deep that even you two can no longer find them. This all happens - again - naturally in accordiance with public interest.

What you are doing is simply another form of bumping, unnatural ressurection of threads that no one cares to participate in any more.

[Nereid]

Hello Neried

You have been busy.

You may have discussed these links before. Others have not and so in re-discussing it allows others to take part.

This statement has already been commented on.

I don't think we have a policy on gratuitous bumping (perhaps we should?), but it's certainly not good (n)etiquette.

I like the heading, good idea.

Sometimes new ideas need to be discussed.

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

Apart from this

I'm looking for a paper, science journal by Prof Neil Turok on the origins of the universe.

Can some help me find it.

My comp is limited on the search.

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

Neried said

Quote:
Hannes Alfvén (1908-1995)
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html

I'm mystified harry ... how does a page giving a biography of Hannes Alfvén equate to a "link against the Big Bang"?

Do I need to explain that many scientists have gone against the idea i=of the BBT and have lost their jobs.

Again you've lost me harry; what do the two parts of your sentence have to do with each other?

I mean, logically, this statement is no different than this one: "many children have gone against the idea i=of the Santa and have lost their lives" (everyone dies, eventually)

or this: "many drivers have gone against the idea i=of the separation of church and state and have won the lottery."

But perhaps you meant to say something like (my bold) "many scientists have gone against the idea i=of the BBT and have lost their jobs solely because of their opposition to it"?

Many scientists have gone along wth the BBT so that their cash flow remained positive.

[snip]

I think you have made the same, basic, error of logic as in your previous statement.

[Nereid]

Checking the arXiv links:

Hello All

I'm listing a few links against the Big Bang.

If these are crank pot links, please let me know.

On the absence of gravitational lensing of the cosmic microwave background
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412276

It's v5 of a paper that was published (ApJ v628, pp. 583-593 (August 1, 2005)); not obvious that this version is the one published.

Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509611

This is v2; presumably some version was published in the conference proceedings (though I rather doubt such a publication would count as being peer-reviewed!)

The Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect in a sample of 31 clusters - a comparison between the X-ray predicted and WMAP observed CMB temperature decrement
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510160

Ah yes, the famous Lieu et al. WMAP SZE paper!

Apparently this (v6!) is the one that was actually published ("ApJ v648, p176 (2006). This is the final version to appear on Sept. 1st").

It's worth discussing this - if you're up to it harry - and in particular comparing the first version with the one actually published.

The Hubble diagram extended to z>>1: the gamma-ray properties of GRBs confirm the Lambda-CDM model
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=.+0605430

The outermost gravitationally bound orbit around a mass clump in an expanding Universe: implication on rotation curves and dark matter halo sizes
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?papernum=.+0605611

[snip]

Links don't work.

[makc]

or this: "many drivers have gone against the idea i=of the separation of church and state and have won the lottery."

This is bad example, because product of probabilities that a) the man is driver, b) he has gone against church/state separation idea, and c) he has won the lottery may be quite small for word "many".

I think harry's post implies that there is significant conditional probability P(man lost job | man was going against BBT), though one man sample can't be considered a proof in that sense.

[harry]

Hello Marc

Do you think there is only one man?

Think again

There are many.

But! that is not the real issue.

The issue is that the Big Bang theory is founded on weak foundations.

One only needs to observe the scope of the universe and its actual size to realize that 13, 20 or 30 billion years is not enough to form the super glusters.

[Nereid]

or this: "many drivers have gone against the idea i=of the separation of church and state and have won the lottery."

This is bad example, because product of probabilities that a) the man is driver, b) he has gone against church/state separation idea, and c) he has won the lottery may be quite small for word "many".

It may indeed be a bad example ... or perhaps a good one.

The point is that the two halves of the statement are linked by "and"; the nature of the relationship, implied by the word "and", between the two halves is, in the statement itself, at best ambiguous and at worst misleading or meaningless.

As you correctly point out, one can apply external knowledge (about drivers, lotteries, etc) and deduce a meaning that may be reasonable ... but unless the assumptions (external knowledge, for example) are made explicit, the statement is more like a Rorschach test.

I think harry's post implies that there is significant conditional probability P(man lost job | man was going against BBT), though one man sample can't be considered a proof in that sense.

I think harry's intent is clear, if you apply the external knowledge of the history of his posts in this thread and this forum.

I also think it's typical of such posts ... sloppy logic, innuendo, extremely repetitive, ...

And it may well be that we've discussed this particular claim - in a more clearly stated form - at least once before (and debunked it).

[Nereid]

Hello Marc

Do you think there is only one man?

Think again

There are many.

Do you intend to a) make a clear, unambiguous statement (one that can be checked against facts)?
b) having made it, defend it?

If not, then please, let's have no more of these kind of things.

But! that is not the real issue.

The issue is that the Big Bang theory is founded on weak foundations.

One only needs to observe the scope of the universe and its actual size to realize that 13, 20 or 30 billion years is not enough to form the super glusters.

I think you mean "clusters", and "of galaxies" - do you?

If so, can you present material to back up your claim?

And by 'material' I mean papers published in appropriate peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[makc]

gluster = galaxy cluster, funny isnt it

[harry]

Hello Marc

Your right clusters.


Smile,,,,,,,,,,I wrote globular clusters and for some reason the computer stooped at glusters.

Oh well.

Hello Nereid.

Mate no papers will give you evidence for or against.

Its a realization of the scope and size of such monsters. The super clusters of galaxies.

So please be scientific with your response and stop trying to support a theory on ad hoc ideas.

If you think I'm wrong about the super clusters than use science to prove it. Don't use words.



.

[cosmo_uk]

I specialise in galaxy clusters, loving the word gluster I might see if I can get away with putting it in my next paper!

In fact the most distant fully formed virialised galaxy clusters are now being found at z~1.4. So they can form in 4.4Gyr!

Dark matter simulations can however cope with these formation times and can represent quite accurate pictures of the universe at each epoch.

There will always be problems with simulations and critics of them (I have been known to have reservations) but they're the best we're going to do because we can't rerun the universe in the lab unfortunately

I'm talking about galaxy clusters not globular clusters by the way - 2 completely different beasts!

[harry]

Hello Cosmo

You said

In fact the most distant fully formed virialised galaxy clusters are now being found at z~1.4. So they can form in 4.4Gyr!

Dark matter simulations can however cope with these formation times and can represent quite accurate pictures of the universe at each epoch.

Your right simulations may have problems. What info you feed will give you a result.

4.4 Gyrs,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Thats the period of evolution on planet earth.

[astro_uk]

I'm talking about galaxy clusters not globular clusters by the way - 2 completely different beasts!

Indeed most of the Globular Clusters were already old by the time your galaxy clusters were virializing.

[harry]

Hello Astro

You said

Indeed most of the Globular Clusters were already old by the time your galaxy clusters were virializing.

Now tell me how did you get that info. Do you know something that we do not.

[astro_uk]

Simple Harry, most GCs have ages of greater than 10-12Gyr, and we see the galaxy clusters forming about 6-10 Gyr years ago.

If you read a few real papers you would know this.

[harry]

Hello Astro

Do you know how big these cluster are?

10 - 12 gyrs is no where near enough time to make up these monsters.

This time scale can be applied to the formation of one star, let alone multi trillions of stars.

Some of the compact cores that we call black holes a billions time that of our sun.

Take the biggest compact core 10 billion times that of our sun. How long will it take to make and how long will it take to burn out.

I know that the BBT will add ad hoc ideas to make it work.

Apply simple maths to it.

[cosmo_uk]

multi trillions of stars

Harry do you know the difference between a globular cluster and a galaxy cluster?

I suggest you go and read up on them both before you start an argument with researchers in those fields.

[/quote]

[astro_uk]

Harry we have had this conversation before, I see that you haven't paid any attention though.

A galaxy cluster is made up of hundreds to thousands of galaxies. They all form stars at the same time, each galaxy can form stars at a rate of hundreds of solar masses per year, how long does it take to form a galaxy the size of the milky way at that rate? Not very long.

You constantly make statements like:

10 - 12 gyrs is no where near enough time to make up these monsters.

Yet you have absolutely no reason for making this claim. I'll restate a question I have previously asked you. Where is your evidence for this claim? Myself and Cosmo are professionals, we know that you can form such things in the time according to all the work we have seen, you are going to have to do better than just making some statement and expecting people to accept your "expert" opinion.

Take the biggest compact core 10 billion times that of our sun. How long will it take to make and how long will it take to burn out.

Another statement that shows you don't understand what you have been reading. What are you talking about? A black hole doesn't "burn out" it is only visible when matter falls in, if nothing is falling in then it's essentially invisble. As for how long it takes to get this big, the answer is less than 10Gyr, depending on the rate of mass accretion and the number of mergers between black holes.

[harry]

Hello Astro

Harry we have had this conversation before, I see that you haven't paid any attention though.

Please do not make statements like this. Humans have been discussing these issues for many years. So please do not sit on a hire horse.

A galaxy cluster is made up of hundreds to thousands of galaxies. They all form stars at the same time, each galaxy can form stars at a rate of hundreds of solar masses per year, how long does it take to form a galaxy the size of the milky way at that rate? Not very long.

What a silly statement from a so called pro.
For one thing stars are not made at the same time. You lack info on star formation. The more I read your comments the more I feal,you know very lttle.

You constantly make statements like:

Quote:
10 - 12 gyrs is no where near enough time to make up these monsters.

This is a correct statement.

Yet you have absolutely no reason for making this claim. I'll restate a question I have previously asked you. Where is your evidence for this claim? Myself and Cosmo are professionals, we know that you can form such things in the time according to all the work we have seen, you are going to have to do better than just making some statement and expecting people to accept your "expert" opinion.

AStro and cosmo are professionals. Please do not use position to enforce a point. Use your science logic. I do not sell my self as an expert. I see experts trying to sell fantasy ideas and use position to enforce it.

Quote:
Take the biggest compact core 10 billion times that of our sun. How long will it take to make and how long will it take to burn out.

Please expalin the point and do not use ad hoc ideas and position to enforce it.

Another statement that shows you don't understand what you have been reading. What are you talking about? A black hole doesn't "burn out" it is only visible when matter falls in, if nothing is falling in then it's essentially invisble. As for how long it takes to get this big, the answer is less than 10Gyr, depending on the rate of mass accretion and the number of mergers between black holes.

A black hole is a very compacted core. It is never visible.
Your answer is too simple. Please use science logic to explain.

Are you for real, 10Gyrs and you call youself a pro.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Astro you need to research more on star formation, compact cores and the production of jets, driven by compact cores.

Look at the properties of plasma matter and the magnetic fields generated
and possibly find the answer rather than me educating you. You expect to much from simple people and you call youself a pro.

Your above response is a waste of time.

Give me your best shot.

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

Too many people are emailing me and complaining about the responses.

[cosmo_uk]

For one thing stars are not made at the same time. You lack info on star formation. The more I read your comments the more I feal,you know very lttle.

Oh dear harry it seems it is you who knows very little about star formation in cluster ellipticals some of the most cosmologically important objects in the universe.

Star formation in cluster ellipticals (i.e. the big galaxies that make a cluster a cluster) is indeed coeval (at the same time harry). How else can you explain the cluster red sequence which ubiquitous out to high redshift? Cluster ellipticals are found to have a very narrow range in ages which implies their stars were all formed in a burst of intense star formation at the same time at high redshift.

Harry read up on the basics before you start on people who know what they're talking about.

[astro_uk]

Harry I repeat my statement where is your evidence?

I can cite papers by real astronomers, working in real institutions, that say that everything makes sense. You have never provided any evidence to back up your claims.

For one thing stars are not made at the same time. You lack info on star formation. The more I read your comments the more I feal,you know very lttle.

Are you seriously suggesting that it is impossible for more than one star in a galaxy to form at the same time?
Did you just forget all of these apods? Most of which you probably commented on.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070224.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070110.html
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap061024.html
How many stars are forming at once in these pictures? Funny it looks exactly as if many stars are forming in a small region, at the same time. Harry if you can seriously claim that stars don't form at the same time, it doesn't really bode well for your credibility does it. Essentially ALL stars form together in vast clouds you can see them doing this from your back garden with a small telescope.

As I have already pointed out some galaxies form a thousand sun type stars a year, it doesn't take very long to make a big galaxy at that rate. This is the conventional view for a reason, because that is what we see. I repeat where is your evidence that this is not the case?

Harry you can regurgitate the same Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology, solid sun, perpetual universe rubbish all you want, it doesn't make it true. Have you even noticed that most of the time the things you push, i.e. EU/PC and Iron Sun are contradictory?

hire horse

I think you mean high horse.

10 - 12 gyrs is no where near enough time to make up these monsters.

This is a correct statement.

Proof please? Some cosmological simulations you have run perhaps? A paper you have read?