Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JimTKirk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
<snip> The first clue was Hubble's finding of silcon and iron and neon as far back in time as it can see. That blows huge holes in the gas model.<snip>
|
So are you saying that Hubble is looking far back enough that no stars could have formed from previous stars? I'm not sure we can say that as some stars blow their fuel and go supernova in only a few million years. |
I'm saying that accoring to EARLY gas model predictions, galaxies didn't even form for billion(S - plural) of years after the BB. This evidence suggests that wasn't even close to being accurate. In fact, as far back as we can see, we find an ABUNDANCE of heavier material, and in fact the SAME materials we find in our own sun today.
Now if the BB wasn't simply a giant explosion, but more of a SLAM or a BLOOM, then the whole gas model goes "poof". What evidence do you have that iron has not ALWAYS existed? Give me ONE piece of evidence to support your case that Hubble didn't just trump with these images. |
(bolding mine)
All references I can find put the first stars and galaxies forming between 300 million to 1 billion years after the big bang. Are you inferring that scientists "adjusted" these figures after seeing hubble data? Cite please!
http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/index.html
Edit to add URL link with timeline.
__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage
|