Quote:
|
Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen
I only checked the first link.
When the articles says large amounts, it doesn't actually say anything about how large and is just quoting from the press release, which uses the words large amounts to mean much more than anticipated for so old QSO's, not high amounts as an absolute measurement.
|
The point here is that the gas model is predicated on a "bang" that encompasses all the energy of the universe and releases all the matter in the universe. If the event was simply an interaction between two "fields of energy", that included suns and other forms of matter, then iron and heavy elements may have always been here. The gas model theories that were around where I was in my teens have long been replaced by models that move the creation of iron further and futher backwards in time because of such findings. The question then becomes: Is it scientifically sound to ASSUME a "bang" rather than "slam"? What evidence leads us to ASSUME that iron didn't predate the event?
Keep in mind that we are still using the "count the photons" method of counting atoms. That is a dubious way to come up with percentages. The interesting aspect of that percentage however is that it is not much different than measurements of our own sun using the same technique. In other words a heavily recycled sun is hardly much different in content than an early model of universe. If the method is inaccurate in gleaning percentages it may still be damaging to the notion that iron was created after the BB.
Quote:
This example alone should tell you how dangerous it is to try to draw conclusions based on what you read in the news.
It will have been rewritten at least twice, once for the press release, at least once more by a nonscientist for publication.
|
I'm not trying to build a case on press releases. There is evidence however that the gas model has problems, starting with the fact we have to keep changing the model's predictions every year. When I was a kid, it supposedly took 5 billion years for galaxies to form. Today we find they existed before a billion years had passed. Somehow all those "good" calculations and predictions of the past required a lot of adjustments to keep up with observational fact. That doesn't concern you a bit? What evidence suggest s that iron did not predate the events of 0,0,0,0?