In the BB the Hubble constant is a 'free parameter', My theory calculates it. say no more.
Cheers,
Lyndon
PS. How did you vote for the 'pillar of the universe?'

You forgot to mention that you never provided a CMB spectrum calculated using your "theory".
And, as others have pointed out elsewhere, your "theory" does not even address the question of nucleosynthesis.
Despite your claims, your "theory" is not based any physics supported by experimental results or self-conistent theoretical speculation.
Since all this has been addressed in other threads, I don't want to hijack this thread.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

papageno wrote
Yeh, there are some interesting points being made by everyone here, lets not stop the flow.
Cheers Lyndon.
PS. How did you vote on the Pillar question?

I see this a lot in the Ashmore's Paradox thread. Are you trying to claim that because the magnitudes of 64km/s/Mpc and 0.6m^-3 are different there is no relation? Well of course there isn't... you need to convert to similar units first! lyndonashmore does this repeatedly on his website and in that thread, showing that when converted to SI units the values are almost identical (~2.1x10-18 s-1). Also, the correct relation is H = 2nhr/m. So, convert H to m^-3 or n to km/s/Mpc, it doesn't matter, the values will be the same when a proper relation is made with similar units.

I believe that n has been determined observationally to a much higher degree of accuracy than the ratios of isotopes used to describe BB nucleosynthesis, but could be wrong.. (just looking at error bars here). Tired-light also assumes that all of the matter involved is real, not taking imaginary Dark Matter into account (which brings an uncertainty of 100% along with it). Estimates of real matter on the other hand give values for n from 0.1 to 10 m^-3, and n=0.6 would provide the conditions equivalent of H=64km/s/Mpc as shown repeatedly by lyndonashmore, so he is in close agreement with observation.

I can't believe someone finally admitted this on this forum =D> Are you taking 'perfectly consistent' notes, Cougar?

Requiring Dark Matter to patch observation to fit "mainstream" theory is not exactly self-consistent, as it requires a completely unknowable parameter to justfy itself. This is no better than Einstein conjuring up the cosmological constant to make the universe act as he wanted. If observation fit GR without Dark Matter, then it would be self-consistent, but this is not the case.

Also, Dark Matter is required for BB theories to work, but Dark Matter is never taken into account to describe the theory itself. To quote myself from my poorly named SRT vs. LET thread:
So 'consistency' and 'accuracy' are matters of faith under BB.

And so nobody is left out,
Again, Ashmore's value n (number of electrons) is constrained by observation, just as Hubble's constant H has been reduced to 72+-8km/s/Mpc by observation (where such strange units come from assuming the redshift=velocity interpretation, a wonderful bias built into the units). So neither BB nor Ashmore are relying on a 'free parameter', they are both constrained by observation.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Ashmore's first "paradox" depends on using a particular set of units.
Which would be nonsense if the relation was not simply a numerical coincidence.
If it really expressed some physical relation, the units would balanced on both sides and equality would hold independently of the system of units.
Ashmore tried to fix this problem by introducing, completely ad hoc, the density of electrons in intergalactic space.
The units now balance properly, however there is no justification for using the electron density (except for an attempt to get the right numbers).

If Ashmore's "paradox" really was a sign of an underlying physical relationship, he would not need this ad hoc fix, with no physical justification.

Using only the electrons, and only that particular value, is not justified by Ashmore.

Unfortunately his "theory" is nowhere near being self-consistent and supported by experimental results, let alone well established physics (such as plasma physics).

"The errors are significant, and indicate something is not right; either in the measurements or in the model." does not necessarily mean that alternatives (such as Ashmore's "theory") are correct.
These alternatives need to do at least as good as the currently accepted theory and stand on their own ("I'm right because he is wrong!" does not work in science).

This was not my point.
Ashmore's "theory" is nowhere near as well supported as the BB Theory: it is inconsistent with well established physics, it deals with much narrower range of phenomenology, and is far from being as accurate.
Ashmore has not been able to provide any experimental results to support his ideas.
Whether modern cosmology needs an ad hoc dark matter is irrelevant to the validity of Ashmore's ideas.
If he used the same standards he uses for the BBT, he would have abandoned his "tired light theory" a long time ago.

Except that Ashmore's calculated Hubble constant has no physical justification, so it is basically worthless.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

They are not even in the same units nor are they convertible into one another using c, hbar and G. The current accepted value of H0 is about 2.5E-18 s^-1. You could convert it to m^-3 by multiplying it by c^2/G/hbar, and arrive at 3.4E+42, not 0.6.
No, most of the time he trumpets his "paradox" that H0 is "equal to hr/m per cubic metre". He has yet to realize that this only works in SI units. It doesn't work in cgs, much less in those goofy units us Americans still use! He still has not cleaned up all the instances of what has been dubbed "Ashmore's Fallacy" from his website, indeed he still states it that way here occasionally.
Only the units are correct. He gives an erroneous argument for his factor of 2.
This cavalier treatment of units is not much better than the non-sequiturs we get from Lunatik.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

Ok, I feel like I've lost my mind here. If the two values are equal when expressed in the same units, why does it matter what units are used??? Ashmore shows that 64km/s/Mpc = 0.6m^-3 = 2.1x10-18 s-1, what is the problem? You can protest that he is misapplying theorems, but his use of Mossbauer et al. on IG plasma to derive this relation is supported by observation.

See my next post.

You realize that km/s/Mpc is a horrible mistreatment of data as described by Hubble himself?? He repeatedly stressed the fact that redshifts should be referred to as apparent radial-velocities, but BB supporters often confuse this with a Doppler shift (as seen in the Ashmore's Paradox thread) because of these strange units that are used. If cosmologists had stuck to the same units as everyone else, the H=2nhr/m relation may have been apparent a long time ago.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

That's like saying that 1m/s is somehow inherently different than 100cm/s, or worse 'just a coincidence'. This is patently false, yet repeatedly claimed in these threads. If the values are equal when converted to the same units, the there is no dependence on units.

I think this is redundant. Regardless, the units DO balance. I thought this dispute was taken care of in the Paradox thread.

This was claimed by Celestial Mechanic as well. Do you disagree with Ashmore's treatment of photon collisions? Ashmore's paper derives the electron density dependance from the mean free path of the photons. It is not ad-hoc, it is the central point of the theory; that light loses energy as it hits electrons in IG plasma. Do we all need to read Ashmore's paper over again?

Only which particular value? Ashmore cites the range of electron density as 0.1 to 10m^-3, and uses the low-end estimate of the Hubble constant as 64km/s/Mpc, which would require 0.6m^-3 according to the theory. This is well within the constraining values. Which one don't you like? The theory also explains that light loses energy when it hits electrons, so why is using 'only the electrons' not justified? He explains explicitly that the redshift from other particles is very small compared to electrons, and that electrons in IG plasma cause the greatest energy loss.

But BB theory is inconsistent with well supported observations, so who is more wrong, Dark Matter or Tired Light? I prefer to err in favor of observation, not theory. Also, most of the evidence which purportedly favors BB is based on a particular interpretation of apparent radial-velocities (as discovered by Hubble et al.) which believes that space is expanding. Ashmore's theory interprets the redshifts as light losing energy as it hits electrons, so to describe BB extrapolations of the space-expansion interpretation using a wholly different interpretation would be meaningless.

Tired light describes what it describes. If it happens to prove empirically that space is not expanding, then BB's greatest assumption is pulled out from under it. Since there is no direct evidence of this expansion, and no direct evidence of Dark Matter, BB cannot yet have an assumed accuracy.

The 'standards' of BB are to mess with the observational data to make it fit theory by assuming expansion, then adding inflation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy. None of these are directly supported by observation.

What the heck does this mean? Ashmore didn't calculate the Hubble constant. Thousands of other workers have been doing that for quite some time now, and came up with 72+-8km/s/Mpc. This value is undisputed. Again, if you don't like his theory then point out where it is wrong.

I would love to continue in the Paradox thread if it is not closed, so that we can discuss the problems in Ashmore's theory. I've read about half of this entire thread, and many of you seem to be misunderstanding IG plasma physics (which I'm sure to be doing as well) and are simply disagreeing with Ashmore because you refuse to accept basic plasma principles. I only suggest this because the same erroneous allegations are still being made, so it would appear the matter is still up for grabs.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

How does he convert inverse cubic meters to inverse seconds?

Read his paper.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

Actually, he doesn't. The original "Ashmore's Fallacy" declared that H was equal to "hr/m per cubic metre". The reason was that, when lyndonashmore's preferred value of H was converted to s^-1 he got 2.1E-18 for it, and when he computed hr/m in SI units he also got 2.1E-18. The only thing is that the units for hr/m are (kg*m^2/s)*m/kg = m^3/s, hence this use of "hr/m per cubic metre". He has corrected this in a few places (but not all!) by multiplying his hr/m by 2*n, where n is the electron density of intergalactic space. This balances the units, and by pulling the value 0.6 m^-3 out of hat for a value of n he gets his equality. However, his justification for the factor of two is in error. He grasps at formulae as if they were straws, using them out of their range of applicability to give the numbers he wants. The same thing, it goes without saying, that he accuses the Big Bang cosmologists of!

Note to akirabakabaka: Please read Ashmore's paper and the critiques of it very carefully. Be very careful about the handling of units, that is lyndonashmore and Lunatik's biggest problem!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

So, what happens if you convert the first "paradox" in the units Americans use (miles, inches, whatever)?

His first "paradox" is expressed as an equality:
H = hr/m.
In order for this to be a proper equality, left hand-side and right hand-side must have the same physical units.
This is not the case for the first "paradox".


Where does n come from?

If you had read the whole thread, you would know that I disagree and that I explained what is wrong with Ashmore's ideas.

Unfortunately for Ashmore, this central point is wrong and it has been shown to be wrong.
If you are really interested, read the thread you linked, and you will see for yourself that Ashmore's "theory" has no physical basis.

What happens to his "paradox", when he uses a range of values for n?

Except that his explanation is wrong.
His "double Mossbauer" is non-sensical from a physical point of view.
He has no mechanism for energy loss due to scattering, and preserving the image and consistent red-shift of the objects at the same time.

The mechanism for this energy loss is non-sensical based on well established fact in plasma physics, based on experimental results.
Ashmore has no physical mechanism that works as he claims.
Hence, his "tired light theory" has no foundation.

There is less evidence supporting this "tired light theory".
Not even Ashmore could come up with any evidence.

Ashmore messed with his first "paradox" to fix the units....

If you read the quote, Ashmore himself said he calculates it...

I did: read the thread you linked.

Ashmore has proven many times that he does not understand basic physics, let alone plasma physics.
We have explained what is wrong with his ideas.

__________________
papageno


"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" - Hobbes (Calvin and Hobbes)

"It's all about context!" - Vince Noir (The Mighty Boosh)

"I've never heard of such a brutal and shocking injustice that I cared so little about!" - Zapp Brannigan (Futurama)

"...because the logic of the lines traced from reality is as poor of aesthetic value as it is strict in consistency. " - Paolo Bozzi (Naive Physics - free translation)

I am only on page 16 of the novel that is the Ashmore's Paradox thread, so forgive me if I am bringing up long-dead arguments here. But so far all I see is a circular debate based on the (flawed) claim that electrons don't oscillate in IG plasma, which they do. The main objection so far is that he is misapplying theorems. It is refuted that Mossbaur et al. cannot be applied, but considering the entirety of Ashmore's paper it appears that observation suggests it can be applied. It is wrong to say specifically the Mossbaur effect because the circumstances are slightly different (there is recoil resulting in energy loss). It has been suggested in the thread that a new term be coined for this effect, the 'double Mossbaur' seems to be the most popular. The resonant/non-resonant argument is the only compelling dissent so far, and has not yet been handled as of page 16, so I'll get back to you on that one!

In standard units the final expression is in 'per sec' to use lyndonashmore's terminology. I think Americans still use seconds. Regardless, you ignored me. How is 1m/s different from 100cm/s? Equivalence is equivalence. Ashmore was never *required* to use SI units, that's just the units scientists use!

Correct, this is not the case. The case is H=2nhr/m.

As I explained in my last post, this is the point of the theory. Ashmore equated the redshift to light losing energy as it travels through space, an idea supported by Hubble in opposition to expansion. The mechanism proposed is collisions with electrons. Why is this any more ad-hoc than say BB's inflation, which apparently has had no effect on the credibility of BB? A big difference is that the mechanism proposed in the tired-light model (electrons) does not require faith in the mechanics of Creation.

As far as I can tell this has always been a condition of his theory. The problem is that his website initially claimed H=hr/m, which is not entirely accurate, but a generalized form. It seems reasonable that he was trying to protect his work while he waited for his paper to be accepted for publication (which he already explained to be the case). Unfortunately a misconception was created because of this.

By page 16 you are just entering the discussion, Celestial Mechanic, and so far your claims are erroneous. I'll get back to you once I've read the whole thing.

The same thing that happens when we use the range of values 72+-8km/s/Mpc for H. The density of electrons in space is obviously not constant, and so n must always be determined observationally, just as H must. The paper states that 64km/s/Mpc "requires Ne ~ 0.5m^-3". A range of about 0.5 to 0.7m^-3 matches the range for H, and still falls within observational constraints.

See above. He said it was missing from the website at first to protect his work, which is much more plausible than this conspiracy which has been propogated that the 2n factor was somehow revealed to him in the first couple posts on the BABB and later added 'ad-hoc'. It is a central focus of the paper.

I still don't get what you're saying here. Given an observed electron density on the order of 0.1 to 10 per cubic meter one can 'predict' the range in which Hubble's constant will fall, which in actuality is about 0.6 (72km/s/Mpc). The problem is that these units are meaningless in this tired-light model, so there is no point in converting to them other than to provide a comparison with the space-expansion model. He has explained this several times as the purpose for providing this comparison. If you are suggesting that his model somehow requires Hubble's constant, I believe you are greatly mistaken.

So I'll continue reading the Paradox discussion hoping some new substance comes out of it.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

I see the Followers of the BB cannot answer the point about eta having to have two mutually exclusive values to explain the abundances of light elements. As an arguing tactic they are trying to divert the discussion. I am happy, nay ecstatic, to discuss my theory, but not here on this thread. In fact, I would like BA to make the mutual exclusivity of eta in the BB a ‘sticky’ until followers of the BB can come up with an answer on the ATM topics.
Let’s get back to the original point. How can nucleosynthesis remain a pillar of the BB when it only explains a wart on the nose of the universe.
Cheers,
Lyndon

I just checked the "Ashmore's Paradox" thread. My first post is on page 4. My first serious post is on page 6. You may want to start taking notes as you read the old threads!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

As has been pointed out many times, nucleosynthesis models make a prediction of the ratios of certain element abundances, based on the assumption that the universe was once small and hot. That prediction is born out by experiment. Therefore it continues to provide support for such a model.

There is a serious question here that gets lost as we deal with more basic misconceptions. We might need a new thread to get away from the trivial errors which doomed this thread from the first post.

There is a significant discrepancy in the predictions, as I understand the matter, which is still not resolved. That is, not all the predictions fit well with experiment. Either there is a problem in the models, or a problem in the measurements, but something is not quite fitting.

The primary reference I have been looking at is by Brian Fields and S. Sarkar: Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (preprint also at astro-ph/0406663). The abstract is up beat, but within the paper there is discussion of a nagging problem.

The problem shows up in figure 20.1 of the paper; a concordance of estimates for Li7, H2 and He4 is not found within the two sigma measurement errors. It does, however, fit within the two sigma systematic error measurements. Basically, this means that there is almost certainly a systematic source of error. This is not all that surprising, given what they are trying to measure; but it is still a discrepancy. Exploring systematic errors is often a fruitful line of research. It can lead to better models for the measurements, or perhaps even for the nucleosynthesis model. Both possibilities are considered in the paper.

Page 6 of the paper puts it thus:
I understand that this thread is riddled with basic errors that require a response. They include

• Misrepresentation of the amount of baryonic matter in the universe. The model being considered has baryonic matter at a bit over 15% of the matter in the universe. A bit more than a wart on a nose!
• Misunderstanding of how models are tested. In biology, if you have a model that has strong implications about a wart on the nose, then you can test it just fine by examining the wart. That there is a lot more to the body makes no difference. It is incorrect to think that nucleosynthesis is somehow discredited because the underlying physics implies that a lot of matter is not made up of nuclei.
• Misunderstanding of what ratios are being measured. The model predicts ratios for the very early universe. This has strong implications in the present; which is why the model is testable. But you don't test it just by counting up all the nuclei you can find. You must carefully direct your measures to regions that are expected to reflect or constrain the possible primordial ratios. It makes no difference whether or not there is a lot more non-luminous baryonic matter we can't see. As long as we can identify observations which constrain primordial ratios, then we can test the model.
• Suggestions that any discrepancy of this model is somehow good news for totally unrelated models, which don't even attempt to explain the same phenomenon and which have far worse problems of their own with error bars than anything seen for big bang nucleosynthesis.

Credible discussion of the real discrepancy will tend to be diluted as long as there are such errors being made in the thread. But it is worth pointing out that buried in the nonsense there may yet be a pearl.

Cheers -- Sylas

[[ Edited to moderate the tone; content unchanged. Also corrected to replace nucleotides with nuclei. (d'oh) ]]

Well, there are discrepancies and then there are discrepancies. Take the following two bold and condescending assertions by lyndonashmore:

As pointed out by numerous contributors, lyndon made a huge mistake by claiming that stars produce hydrogen. And I certainly don't buy his attempts to excuse himself.

I would contend that any serious high school student would be able to conclude from the above two ashmore quotations that our highly (self-)esteemed Mr. Ashmore really doesn't know what he's talking about and is making this stuff up as he goes along.

It is therefore doubly curious that the uber-skeptical akibakabaka would do his abrasively best to denounce and belittle every serious astronomer, astrophysicist, and cosmologist who has contributed to their field in the past 80 years, while inexplicably doggedly defending the dubious "theories" of lyndonashmore.

But to each his own, I guess.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

[removed unecesary line of questioning]

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Of course. I'm saying the same thing.

You don't need to persuade me of the discrepancies that arise in the minds of certain thread contributors, and you've got basically no hope fixing it. Some people just don't get physics. It's still worthwhile to point out those problems, but then there are also the second set of discrepancies.

Does anyone have a comment on the actual discrepancies mentioned in Fields and Sarkar? These guys are solidly mainstream, and fundamentally they consider that nucleosynthesis does remain good evidence for big bang cosmology. And they also describe a discrepancy between predictions and measurements, and some possible resolutions.

That's the only real discrepancy, and I think it is actually quite interesting.

Cheers -- Sylas

You forgot this basic misconception, Sylas.
"Almost certainly a systematic error!!!!!"
Its wrong. Thats all. Proof beyond doubt that nucleosynthesis is wrong and yet you cannot accept it.
You had the theory, tested it against experiment and the experiment showed the theory to be wrong.
Its like 1984, "the party says the BB is correct"
"But it goes against experimental results"
The BB party is correct
"But the eta values are mutually exclusive"
"Doesn't matter, the BB party is correct".
"But we need inflation to get the correct results and nobody knows what it is or where it comes from"
"Doesn't matter, the BB party is correct".
"But we need all this dark matter and nucleosynthesis doesn't explain this"
"Doesn't matter, the BB party is correct".
"OK, if I want to get on in the party then I'll say it, the Bb party is corrrect"
"Ah but you are still THINKING that the BB is wrong"
etc etc.
When observation goes against theory, you go with the observations. To say it is almost certainly systematic is rediculous.
Do you realise what it means when two values' 2 sigma's don't overlap?
For one observation to be that far out by chance is one in 20. For both is 1 in 400.
"Ah but you are still THINKING that the BB is wrong"
Cheers,
Lyndon

Cougar, the whole point of your post is to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Why do you bother posting at all when you don't say anything?

You even went so far as to dig up an out of context misstatement from like 6 months ago, which lyndonashmore even corrected later in that discussion. And there was no point of bringing it up in the first place except to attack our characters. We can only assume that you're just looking to start trouble.

You didn't say a single thing in your entire message. Quit wasting our time, please.

__________________
there is no governor anywhere

You're right, I forgot that misconception. My mistake. Please add the following three misconceptions to the four mentioned previously. All these erroneous distractions inhibit meaningful or substantive discussion of the discrepancy in this thread.

• If there is any failure to get within measurement error bars, this is proof positive that the whole model is worthless.
• Systematic error bars don't mean anything; they are just fiddle factors and can be ignored in evaluating a result.
• A 2 sigma error means a 95% chance of the model being wrong.

The first two misconceptions usually arise from an obdurate refusal to show a bit of basic common sense in reading a technical paper.

The third misconception is more subtle. It arises from a basic misunderstanding in statistics. What a two sigma error really means is a 5% chance of getting this result given that that the model is correct.

We can describe this error mathematically. Let M be the event that the model is correct, and R be the event that observe a result two sigma or more away from the model prediction. This means Pr(R|M) = 0.05. The error is to read this as Pr(M|R) = 0.05.

Understanding this third point is important for a proper understanding of the meaning of error bars; but it does not make a great deal of difference in this particular instance. The measurement is sufficiently far out that we can be confident of some kind of systematic error. There is no way in the result to identify the source of the error. That why real scientists identify a range of possible resolutions (systematic measurement error; systematic model error; or a new theory in physics).

Lyndon only recognizes the last of these, and even then he is only capable of seeing this as "big bang physics replaced" without even considering in passing "particle formation physics replaced". This kind of basic error in elementary physics pretty much dooms this thread for credible discussion of the real problems.

Cheers, Sylas

He isn't wasting mine.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Now do your sums for the other result and then calculate the probability of both results being 2 sigma out and 'just touching'. The point being is that both results have to be 'way out' (ie you need two 'bad' results) in order for them to overlap - which means multiplying the probabilities.
Cheers,
Lyndon

Lyndon, that's what systematic means. If only one result was wrong (or improbable or whatever), it wouldn't be systematic...

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

You are a wise man, Sylas.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Actually, Sylas, it appears this discrepancy between BBN and CMB data was solved four years ago, and there is no longer any discrepancy. At least that's what this site tells us....

The case appears to be closed.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Fram wrote

But the errors are systematic' in opposite directions!!!
Nice try - didn't work.
cheers,
Lyndon
Actually Fram the technical wording for this 'inverse systematic uncertainties' is 'tension in the results'.

Nope, it appears that this was another little problem the BB followers kept quiet.
We are loking at the relative abundances of the light elements and not the total amount.
Tut Tut Cougar!
Cheers,
Lyndon