Elements formed in Big Bang not in stars or supernovae

[CraigD]

I'm just stating that the Big Bang is based on foundations that are weak.

And you’ve been asked to state specifically what you believe those weak foundations to be, and suggest an alternative to its “hot, early” nucleosynthesis model.

Please read the following links and let me know what you think.

 

Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang

So Far and yet so Near

Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005

Big Bang Distortions

I appreciate you providing these links to support you claim. While I didn’t (re)read them all, I’m familiar with David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill. As the wikipedia and thunderbolt links explain, Although Thornhill has an undergraduate science education, “the lack of curiosity and the frequent hostility toward this challenge to mainstream science convinced Thornhill to pursue an independent path outside academia”, while Talbot background is in comparative mythology. Both are supporters of the theories of Immanuel Velikovsky, another mythologist, the best known of which is that various cataclysm myths, such as the Biblical flood, were caused by close encounters of Earth with Venus in the 15th century BC, and with Mars in the 5th century BC. The lack of any support of these hypothesis using conventional orbital mechanics lead Velikovsky to propose, and various people such as Talbott and Thornhill to expand upon, the idea that unexplained magnetic and electrical interactions of magnitudes never observed by science allowed the planets to follow trajectories never predicted by mainstream science. Discussion of these theories at hypography may be found using its search function.

 

Because I find these claims incredible, I have little confidence in other claims of Talbot and Thornhill, such as those at their thunderbolts.info website. Talbot, Thornhill, and many others are, IMHO, people who have found financial benefit in catering to branch of the fringe science community, and should not considered in serious scientific discussion.

 

This is not to say that I am entirely confident in the whole of the best current versions of the Big Bang theory, only that I find Talbot and Thornhill’s criticism of it, and of theories concerning more recent events such as the formation of the solar system, of no scientific worth.

 

It’s also worth noting that all elements of the Big Bang theory do not need to be correct for its nucleosynthesis model to be. Even if future theoretical development radically alters the theory, I doubt that this portion of it will be discarded or greatly altered.

[scerri]

I have read a number of the websites and papers referred to.

 

Something I find a little odd is that there is hardly ever a mention of the formation of 1H, protium. Most of the talk seems to be about deuterium.

 

Is the cosmic abundance of 1H not similar to the terrestrial abundance, whereby it far, far outpaces 2H.

 

And how was 1H formed in the BB or shortly thereafter and why is there so little mention of this?

 

 

regards,

eric scerri PhD

UCLA, Chemistry Department

[Pluto]

Hello All

 

Further reading

 

arXiv.org Search

 

Always interested in other peoples opinions.

 

I understand that standard models need a priority and some form of respect, But not at the expense of being trapped in a line of thinking that prevents scientific method. History repeats itself through the ages.

 

We are at the age, the turning point where people will question.

[InfiniteNow]

Further reading

 

arXiv.org Search

 

Always interested in other peoples opinions.

 

I understand that standard models need a priority and some form of respect, But not at the expense of being trapped in a line of thinking that prevents scientific method. History repeats itself through the ages.

 

We are at the age, the turning point where people will question.

 

The articles in your attachment all relate to stellar nucleosynthesis. Has anyone here claimed that this process does not occur? Why the need to share this information when the OP clearly is asking about nucleosynthesis in a big bang event?

[Pluto]

Hello Infinitenow.

 

A compact core whether large or small have similar properties.

 

Since we cannot work with the BB, we must work with the existing compact cores that we can study.

 

That is why I posted the above.

[Moontanman]

Hello Buffy

 

You said

 

 

I have not scolded people.

 

I'm just stating that the Big Bang is based on foundations that are weak.Please read the following links and let me know what you think.

 

Bullet Cluster Shoots Down Big Bang

So Far and yet so Near

Big Bang a Big Loser in 2005

Big Bang Distortions

 

So you think that the big bang created all the elements and the several billion years of existence have been spent breaking them down into hydrogen? What if there was no singularity based BB? read this,

 

http://www.endlessuniverse.net/

 

Michael

[Pluto]

Hello Moontanman

 

No,I do not think along the lines of the Big Bang Theory.

 

I think along the lines of an endless recyclic universe.

 

All observations of 1000's of images and many papers lead me to think like that.

[InfiniteNow]

Hello Moontanman

 

No,I do not think along the lines of the Big Bang Theory.

 

I think along the lines of an endless recyclic universe.

 

All observations of 1000's of images and many papers lead me to think like that.

 

Hi Harry. :)

[Pluto]

Hello Infenitenow

 

Smile,:doh: