0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Einstein-science may have accepted Einstein for his Relative views but that is not what got the Einstein universe into the syllabus, the pay-off was nuclear reaction, e=mc^2, it was this in which the world stood aside, the implications involved.
IS THE CONCEPT OF A BIG BANG CORRECT?No, absolutely not. It is based on a misunderstanding of the atomic nucleus and nuclear energy (E = mc^2).So much nonsense has been written under the guise of cosmology and theoretical physics that I recommend going back to the basic data to find the answers.Only 3,000 data points represent the rest masses of the 3,000 different types of nuclei that make up the entire visible universe. They will lead you to three fundamental truths:1. The neutron-proton interaction is strongly attractive.2. The neutron-neutron interaction is strongly repulsive.3. The proton-proton interaction is identical to the n-n interaction, PLUS Coulomb repulsion between + charges.Here are the data, on a 3-D plot of M/A (mass or energy per nucleon) vs Z/A (charge density) vs A:http://www.omatumr.com/Data/2000Data.htmHere are links to peer-reviewed manuscripts where the the importance of these fundamental interactions for our understanding of the Sun and the cosmos are discussed:1. "Attraction and repulsion of nucleons: Sources of stellar energy", Journal of Fusion Energy 19, 93-98 (2001).http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts/jfeinterbetnuc.pdf2. "Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 252, 3-7 (2002).http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2001/nuc_sym3.pdf3. "Neutron repulsion confirmed as energy source", Journal of Fusion Energy 20, 197-201 (2003).http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2003/jfe-neutronrep.pdf4. "Nuclear systematics: IV. Neutron-capture cross sections and solar abundance", Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 266, No. 2, 159-163 (2005).http://www.omatumr.com/abstracts2005/Fk01.pdf5. "The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass", Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69, number 11, pp. 1847-1856 (Nov 2006); Yadernaya Fizika 69, number 11, (Nov 2006); PAC: 96.20.Dt DOI: 10.1134/S106377880611007Xhttp://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0609/0609509.pdf6. "On the cosmic nuclear cycle and the similarity of nuclei and stars", Journal of Fusion Energy 25 (2006) pp. 107-114; DOI:10.1007/s10894-http://arxiv.org/pdf/nucl-th/0511051I will be happy to answer any questions. Fortunately the new U .S. Energy Secretary, Dr. Steven Chu, has the background to see through all of the rubbish that currently fills the literature on cosmology and theoretical physics.It will be interesting to see if science plays a dominant role over politics in Dr. Steven Chu's tenure as head of the US Department of Energy (DOE).With kind regards,Oliver K. Manuelhttp://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
G'day from the land of ozzzzThere are various BBT some state the origin from one singularity others state the origin from multi singularities through out the universe at the same time. It does not matter which one you choose. They both state that the universe started at about 13.7Gyrs.A simple observation of deep field images North and Soouth show us a potential of over 100,000,000,000 Galaxies in various formations from spiral to elliptical, small clusters of galaxies to super clusters of galaxies and super massive condensed matter (some call black holes)having a mass over 18 G Sun mass and a life span of 10^69 yrs. The complexity is far greater than we can imagine and yet we have people stating that all this can be formed in just 13.7 Gyrs and supporting this with ad hoc theories to make the model work.As a simple comparison our continents are aged to be about 4 billion years and our Sun to be about 5 billion years having its origin from a possible Supernova from a previous Sun phase. This is just our Sun, what about the star clusters found in the MW that have millions of stars within them, how long did they take to form.
Abstract: Certain results of observational cosmology cast critical doubt on the foundations of standard cosmology but leave most cosmologists untroubled. Alternative cosmological models that differ from the Big Bang have been published and defended by heterodox scientists; however, most cosmologists do not heed these. This may be because standard theory is correct and all other ideas and criticisms are incorrect, but it is also to a great extent due to sociological phenomena such as the "snowball effect" or "groupthink". We might wonder whether cosmology, the study of the Universe as a whole, is a science like other branches of physics or just a dominant ideology.
Behind the Iron Curtains scientists are doing "their thing".