The Electric Universe (Evolution)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, March 11, 2011, 21:48 (5004 days ago) @ David Turell


> I don't see how it screws up the timeline.
> > -Assuming that the star is the estimated 12.8by age that they are claiming, that would put the star having formed less than 1by after the BB. That would mean that the star would have had to have formed MUCH faster that is allowed by the standard BB model. It is possible, and the EU theory EXPLAINS it instead of just ASSUMING it.-
http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/Stars/l1.html
"..about 1 billion years after the big bang the first star forming regions, conglomerates of perhaps 106 to 109 solar masses began to develop. Over the next several billion years, most of these merge to form larger units or are partially destroyed by the energetic supernovae which develop as a natural part of star formation. Within a few billion years most of these have developed into stable configurations of stars and gas and are recognisable as ``galaxies''. -Venus could be a coincidence..-No, conservation of angular momentum says that it should not be possible for the planets to have counter rotat-ions, or counter orbits. The BBT just tramples all over it and pretends that it doesn't exist. The EU theory explains it.-
Recombination/Decoupling, from 240,000 to 300,000 years:
As the temperature of the universe falls to around 3,000 degrees (about the same heat as the surface of the Sun) and its density also continues to fall, ionized hydrogen and helium atoms capture electrons (known as "recombination"), thus neutralizing their electric charge. With the electrons now bound to atoms, the universe finally becomes transparent to light, making this the earliest epoch observable today. It also releases the photons in the universe which have up till this time been interacting with electrons and protons in an opaque photon-baryon fluid (known as "decoupling"), and these photons (the same ones we see in today's cosmic background radiation) can now travel freely. By the end of this period, the universe consists of a fog of about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium, with just traces of lithium.-
The reason that little line is highlighted is because the rate of expansion, and the subsequent speed and trajectory of matter would be constantly expanding away from each other, not collapsing inwards to form superheated balls of gas and forming stars. To say they they did would violate conservation of angular momentum. The fact that they say the uverse consists of a 'fog' negates the notion that any formation would have had enough enough mass to affect the angular momentum of surrounding particles. -They contradict themselves (again) a little further down:-Star and Galaxy Formation, 300 - 500 million years onwards:
Gravity amplifies slight irregularities in the density of the primordial gas and pockets of gas become more and more dense, even as the universe continues to expand rapidly.[/color] These small, dense clouds of cosmic gas start to collapse under their own gravity, becoming hot enough to trigger nuclear fusion reactions between hydrogen atoms, creating the very first stars.-A rapidly expanding fog would not have anything dense enough to change the angular momentum of the surrounding particles. Gravity is a WEAK force. Electromagnetism on the otherhand... -
The Big Bang Theory survives by harumphing the challengers out of the limelight in the kangaroo court of the peer review system while consistently failing to successfully make predictions, and then trying to make the data fit the theory by inventing things that can't be proven to fill in the gaps.-Read the predictions page on the website I linked, and the results of the predictions. That is how science is supposed to be performed. Study, hypothesis, prediction, observation, analysis. EU fits the data. BBT does not.