Pow! Zap! (Big) Bang?! (Introduction)

by David Turell , Saturday, September 25, 2010, 19:23 (5173 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained


> >Haven't you studied Hoyle and molecular resonances?
> 
> No, I haven't, I will look it up.
> 
> "In the sequence of atomic weight numbers 5 and 8 are vacant.
> That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or mass 8 . . The question
> then is: How can the buildup of elements by neutron capture get by
> these gaps? The process could not go beyond helium 4 and even if it
> spanned this gap it would be stopped again at mass 8. This basic
> objection to Gamow's theory is a great disappointment in view of
> the promise and philosophical attractiveness of the idea."—*William
> A. Fowler, California Institute of Technology, quoted in Creation
> Science, p. 90.-Hoyle's theory solves all of this. It is widely accepted.-
> They can't, or they would have already announced it. That is basic of basic spherical trig.-I don't buy your objection.Estimates of distances are still estimates in light years. Is the universe a sphere, or does it look like a loaf of raisin bread? Especially since yesterday's discussion pointed out that what is beyond 3oo,000 years after the BB cannot be known to us at this juncture in scientific ability.
> 
> >Diffrent stars of different ages have different composition. To have our solar system lots of iron must be present. Not all stars are like ours with ,little or no iron.
> 
> Yes, but they do not have consistent compositions that match the predictions of the BBT. Some older stars have more heavy metals than younger stars, some have less. According to the BBT they should all have more heavy metals in their composition. (Because us of the cyclic transmutation of hydrogen and helium to heavier metals.)-Again read about Hoyle. Stars do differ, depending on how big they are, how much gravitational force they have and how close they were to a supernova to gets its products.
> 
> >I don't know what dark matter is either, but something has unseen marked gravitational effects.
> 
> Gravity is a 'weak force' and is unable to account for the phenomena that is being observed. Electromagnetism is a much much greater force, and far more likely a candidate.-Not according to current thinking. Gravity from 'something' accounts for unexplained shapes of galaxies, their movements and so forth. Who is measuring eltromagnetism and from where? Sources please.
> 
> And since you recommended Hoyle, here is his statement regarding BBT.
> 
> "The main efforts of investigators have been in papering over
> holes in the Big Bang theory, to build up an idea that has become
> ever more complex and cumbersome . . I have little hesitation in
> saying that a sickly pall now hangs over the Big Bang theory. When
> a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows
> that the theory rarely recovers."—*Sir Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang
> Theory under Attack," Science Digest, May 1984, p. 84.-Ancient Hoyle quote. I know he named the BB derisively. He changed his mind later. You need current literature. People do change their opinions.