Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
The "assumption" it should be scaled to a factor of zero is arbitrary. The fact it is "assumed" to have ever scaled to zero is the issue here, not the formula. Why was that assumption made? If it never scaled to zero to begin with, then you have no way to know that hydrogen was ever the most abundant element in those dust clouds.
|
The 'scaling', as you call it, is not an 'assumption'.
The basis of the big bang theories is really very simple; it's nothing more than the assumption that the physics which has been so exhaustively tested in the lab also applies to the universe as a whole.
Specifically, General Relativity (GR), and the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics.
Of course, these assumptions - GR and the SM work in the universe at large - require testing, by observations. So far, things are working out pretty well, considering that the physics has only been tested - via experiments - in an utterly trivial fraction of the total universe (the most accurate part of the most thoroughly tested theory - QED - is accurate to no more than our star in the stars in the local group, or our galaxy in the galaxies in the visible universe; probably a lot less).
So, if you don't like the idea of the big bang, and you want something 'better', you will almost certainly have to throw out GR, quantum theory (or both), or modify either - or each - significantly.
And that, in a nutshell, is why Fe (and all elements heavier than Li) were created 'well after' H, He, and Li were.