Originally Posted by Michael Mozina

If you read the PDF file on my website, I make a bunch of them at the end.



Read the paper and then lets talk. I simply am pointing out in this thread that the "assumption" that the element of hydrogen was always the most abundant element in the universe relates back to the Big Bang theory, which itself is very questionable. For hydrogen to be the most abundant element, we are assuming that all energy was subatomic at some "point" in "time". That is an assumption that has never been established to have been the condition at the moment of the BB. If it was more of a "slam" event, there is no way to know how much energy was matter and how much was subatomic.



I think you are probably right about that, but I can't do it all by myself. I'll need help and the effort of others. That is why I'm here talking about it.



That is a false statement. If the mainstream model predicts more, it should be right more often. It's wrong a lot too as the newest Spitzer data demonstrates. Predictions aren't the be all, end all of being right or wrong.

You may have the right to suggest the gas model makes more predictions because it's more "mature" than my model, but then you still need to explain why some of the predictions have been scale of factors off in the past and why we have all the surprises ever year or two about when galaxies first formed?



I'll make one more prediction for you then. I predict that this model will be taken a lot more seriously when the next round of solar satellites go into space and start returning images. When we go to megapixel resolutions, there will be plenty of evidence to demonstrate that everything I am saying is true. Well, most of it anyway.