Back to your theory of He-Fe, Sylwester.

Would you then suggest that if we analyse a white dwaft and check the percentage of iron in it to varify your theory? Would this be possible? If not, then we just need to upgrade technology (again). If we can, then this could help or disprove your theory, depending on the results. If it has already been done, then check what the results were against your predictions.
And I don't mean calcutated results. I mean actual obseravations made of actual white dwarves.
Another issue; I recall reading of red giants that produce large clouds of dust, consisting of carbon (I believ they are unimaginativly called "carbon stars"). That appears to support the theory that when helium fuses, it produces carbon (and also nitrogen and oxygen). I don't believe this would happen if what you stated about helieum forming iron was true in solar type stars.
I have yet another question: what then occurs in stars that produce supernova? Current theory holds that the core will eventual be like an onion; hydrogen to helium, helium to carbon/nitrogen/oxygen, C/N/O to neon, and so forth up to iron, which cannot support fusion.
Do you have a different view of such phenomanon?

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

My theory also contains the electromagnetic and weak interactions and gives much better results (see #15 and #27)

To renormalized this theory we need 8 parameters. The selection of the Feynman graphs is not adequate to the physical situation. Why? There does not exist a good model of the internal structure of electron (besides mine). From my model it results that around the electron there is possible only the creation of electron-positrons pairs (only one Feynman graph).
Why my model of electron is correct?
Because gives answers to following problems:
-magneto-mechanical anomaly (there does not exist such theory besides mine)
-physical meaning of the electric charge and the lines of forces (there is not such theory besides mine)
-physical meaning of the wave function and explanation of the two slit experiment (only my theory is correct)
-interactions of particles containing electron and their life-times

and many others.

It is very complicated theory (a few hundreds of pages). My theory is very simple and also ‘provides….’ and gives answers to questions the QED cannot.

GRAND LUNAR, I like your posts because they are mature.

The internal structure of white dwarves must be consistent with my theory of evolution of stars based on the Gamma Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation (GASER) and on the four-neutrino supersymmetry (see #35, thread 'SK cosmology ideas'). I do not considered the percentage of these objects because it is astrophysics. But maybe one day?
I concentrated on the general model of evolution of stars because it is cosmology.

In my model also is produced carbon but in small amount. Described by you problem is connected with your next question (see below).

During the explosion of a supernova (high temperature in the exterior layers) there took place following transformations
(56)Ni into (56)Co into (56)Fe
Why first nickel not iron? Since there is obligatory four-neutrino supersymmetry. There were preferred creations of the chemical elements containing 4n protons and 4n neutrons (n denotes integer number). Nickel 56 contains 28 protons and 28 neutrons and has density almost equal to the density of nucleus of iron i.e. the highest density.
Next transformations (number of nucleons divided by 1 or 2 or 4 or 8 because of the four-neutrino supersymmetry)
(56)Fe into (28)Si into (14)N
----------- (14)C + (56)Ni into (12)C + (58)Ni
(12)C + (12)C into (24)Mg
(64)Ni into (32)S into (16)O
(16)O + (24)Mg into (40)Ca
------------------- (40)Ar
From these chemical elements are built exterior layers of the Earth and mean density is equal to 4 g/cm3. The age of these layers is equal about 5 billion years. Thickness of these layers is about 2000 km. From this matter are built also the stone meteors.

Well, thank you for the compliment, Sylwester.

Considering the rather large amounts of carbon that are observed, then "small" must be in realitive terms.

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

Yes, you are right. There exist two different physical conditions when the carbon can be created:

First: carbon is created in the central parts of stars when the pressure is sufficiently high (about 10^16 Pa). Then inside star acts GASER and because of the four-neutrino supersymmetry is produced carbon in small amount. Such situation we have in the sun.

Second: carbon can be created when the temperature of gas is sufficiently high (I know the resonant value but it is connected with my future patent). I may say that the temperature must be much greater than will be in ITER i.e. must be much greater than the 200 million K. In this case there must be satisfied also the second condition: the resonant temperature must rapidly drop. These two conditions may be satisfied in some explosions of stars. Such situation we have in the explosion of supernova type Ia and in some class of stars (carbon stars). Mechanism of such creation of carbon I described in #93. But take notice that the FINAL RESULT DEPENDS ON THE SPEED OF DROP OF TEMPERATURE.

Your original quote suggested (at leat to me) that you thought that QED got such good agreement with experiment because it had a bunch of parameters that were tuned to give the right answer. If all you are saying is that you have to feed in the mass of the electron, the charge of the electron, etc., then I don't see what the problem is.

Edited to add your original quote for context...

The main reason that the Feynman QED MATCHES THE THEORETICAL VALUES TO THE EXPERIMENTAL FACTS is extreme number of possible channels (the Feynman graphs) of interactions between two particles. There was discussion which graphs we must take into account. As I said in #27 also the authors of the renormalized perturbation theories (i.e. the Feynman QED, the electroweak theory and others) had written ill of their theories themselves. For example Feynman in his book 'QED' called the renormalization a crazy idea and said that the renormalization is an obstacle to prove mathematical cohesion of the quantum electrodynamics. In my opinion subtraction of two infinities (hanky-panky as said Feynman) never will lead to understanding of the structures of microcosm and macrocosm.

What I propose? There is only one graph. Outside of the bare electron (torus built of the neutrinos from the neutrino background around the central mass also built of the neutrinos) are created the virtual electron-positron pairs. These pairs interact electromagnetically and weakly with bare electron. And it is all. This model leads to the same results as the Feynman QED!!!

What is my model of electron?

First question: Why the electron and the antiproton have the same charge?
As I said (#28) the neutrino background it is an ocean and there can be the analogs to waves (to the density of neutrino background you must add the additional density lower than the density of background) or to islands (density of ‘island’ is higher than the density of neutrino background). In the electron there are only the analogs to waves. It causes that a state of electron is described by the wave function.
The scientists who in the experiments examine the structure of electron say: THERE IS NOTHING and they do not know why. I say: THERE IS ALMOST NOTHING (there are not Galapagos on Pacific Ocean).
Electron arises in the result of polarisation of the neutrino background so the torus (see #1 and #29, thread ‘Professor W.Ketterle discovered new state of matter’) of the electron is sunk in the neutrino background like a submarine in the full submersion. On the surface of the torus there are the pairs of neutrinos and they are in the same state but one is placed on the convex surface and the second on the crowned surface (so precisely the states a little different). The neutrinos in the pair attract each other and that causes that they make the half-circle turns in the centre and on the circular axis of torus (the circle lie inside the torus). From that follows the creation of two masses i.e. the point mass and the circular mass (the circular mass is equal to the point mass). The magneto-mechanical anomaly results from the fact that on the circular axis there is whole charge and only a half of the bare mass.
The torus of electron and the torus of proton ARE BUILT OF THE SAME NUMBER OF NEUTRINOS AND IT CAUSES THAT THE DENSITIES OF THE CREATED ETERION-HIGGSON STREAMS ARE ALSO THE SAME (they are the lines of electrostatic forces, the mechanism of creation of such streams is described for the neutrinos in #42, thread ‘Professor….’). On the surface of the torus of proton the neutrinos are in such distances that they may interact weakly, however the neutrinos on the surface of the torus of electron are in the distances equal to the mean distance of neutrinos in the neutrino background. In the torus of proton the distance between the neutrinos is about 554.3 times smaller than in the torus of electron. Around the electron there arise the virtual photons and the virtual electron-positron pairs. The virtual particles look like the real particles but they are in full submersion in the neutrino background of the Universe (i.e. the average density inside a virtual particle is the same as the density of the neutrino background).
In the centre of electron ‘the amplitude of wave’ (i.e. the mass density of the point mass of electron) is about 2 . 10^5 times smaller than ‘the deep of water’ (i.e. the neutrino density of the background) – you see that it is almost nothing. The same we can say about the circular mass of electron.

Second question: What is the physical interpretation of the wave function?
Since the density of the electron is only in a very small degree higher than the density of the neutrino background then the electron can disappear in one place of space and appear in other place of space (sometimes in large distance from first place). It happens very, very, very quickly because there exist the eterions and higgsons (see #1 and #29, thread ‘Professor W.Ketterle….’) and very distant points in space can quickly communicate. Set of values of densities of such distribution of energy of electron is connected with the square of the wave function. ELECTRON DOES NOT JUMP!!! Only the wave function as the whole can move (because of the ‘very, very, very quickly’).
How we could explain the famous Young’s two-slit experiment for photons or electrons?
Since the electron can quickly disappear and appear then the statement that electron passes only one slit is untrue. During the passage the electron many times appears in each slit. The wave function passes the slits simultaneously.

Third question: What is the electric charge?
The electric charge it is an abstract physical quantity. It is the set of points where the eterion-higgson streams (they are the lines of forces of the electrostatic field) converge, then the electric charge it is the circular axis inside the torus (of proton or electron) built of neutrinos. Because the neutrinos have internal helicity (left or right) then the eterions and higgsons flow in through the holes of neutrinos to the inside of torus (and flow out to the outside through the spaces between neutrinos) or flow out through the holes to the outside (and flow in to the inside through the spaces between neutrinos). These two possibilities I identify with the positive and negative electric charge.
Similar situation we have in the tropical cyclone. The air from outside of cyclone is sucked to the ‘eye’ of cyclone and next is thrown upwards. Of course the density of matter inside the proton and electron is much, much higher than inside a cyclone.

They still end off with only one answer. It doesn't look at all as if it was fitted.
We now have a far better understanding of what is involved in renormalisation. For example if we develop a field theory of a system such as a ferromagnet (by taking the continuum limit) we find exactly the same sorts of infinities, or divergences appearing. If you wish we can discuss this further, but it is certainly the case that renormalisation, etc., are not the black arts that they once were considered to be. Things have moved on.

Sylwester, I've looked up info about stars to see if I could find about what elements have been detected (i.e, to see if solar types do produce iron).

Calcium, titanium (and TiO), oxides, and neutral metals are dectected, but not iron (at least, not in porportions that you theorize they produce).

So far, standard theory applies to fusion in stars. Some processes are not wholely, understood, but that wouldn't mean standard theory is wrong; just in need of revising in light of further observations.

If you wish to reiterate how your theory works for how iron can be made in the core of solar type stars on their main sequence, can you do so in layman's terms, please?

__________________
I calculated the odds of this succeeding versus the odds I was doing something incredibly stupid...and I went ahead anyway. - Crow T. Robot

Godspeed, John Glenn. - Scott Carpenter

And these atomic bombs that science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men that used them.
- H.G Wells, The World Set Free

To the conspiracy crowd, radiation is a big Boogey Man that inspires terror and death in all who encounter it. - JayUtah

It is your choice: 10 pages or 1000 pages. The results are the same. It means that one of these theories is incorrect.
I say once more. The QED must take into account the weak interactions because the coupling constant of weak interactions of electron is only about 652 times smaller than the coupling constant of the electromagnetic interactions. The Feynman QED does not take into account the weak interactions of electron but gives good results. It means that the Feynman QED is incorrect. If the Feynman theory would take into account the weak interactions then for the magnetic moment of electron we would have following result:
1.00116 i.e. only 6 significant digits.
My advice: it is a waste of time.

A propos your proposal. On principle I do not discuss problems which are for me almost tabula rasa. The ferromagnetism is for me almost tabula rasa but thank you for proposal.

I have said before that the theory that includes both EM and the weak force is called "electroweak". You would no more expect QED to include the weak force than you would expect a theory of gravity to include the strong nuclear force.

By the way, there are perfectly good reasons why QED works so well for the electron. It is because the corrections that arise from weak interactions and QCD interactions are relatively small. This, however, is not the case if you try to calculate the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon.

Also, you still haven't justified your statement that suggested that QED obtained such a good result for the electron because it was fudged in order to do so.
You raised renormalisation as a problem for QED. It seemed relevant to explain that it is no longer the bizarre creature that it was once thought to be.

Note to readers: This is now the only active thread for discussion of Sylwester Kornowski's ideas.

I have now closed the other thread which contained active discussion ( Sylwester Kornowski's cosmology ideas (was Before the Big Bang)), for reasons I presented here.

Please note that, per Sylwester's request*, we should try to limit our continued discussion of his ideas to cosmology.

Over the next few days, I will be moving (or copying) posts that are relevant to ongoing or open questions and topics in the other (now closed) thread. My apologies for the temporary disruption.

*"So I proposed to limit our discussion to the cosmology (origin and evolution of infinite Universe as a whole)."

This is the first of the ongoing discussions/open questions, related to cosmology, from the (now closed) Sylwester Kornowski's cosmology ideas (was Before the Big Bang) thread.

- - - - Nereid, post #97 - - - - As H0 (the Hubble constant in our local part of the universe, today) has been determined to be 72±8 km/s/Mpc, I guess that is the end of your idea, right?

Hmm, I didn't think you'd give it up so quickly.

Please explain how your idea is consistent with the observed value of H0.

- - - - - Sylwester, post #99 (extracts, numbering added) - - - - -
[a] Of course it is not an end of my theory (and never will be because of probability). In cosmology the value of the Hubble constant it is the average value for whole our World, not for a particular part. Also I suggested why the estimation of the age of our World contains error. I am patient. I will wait. I was right saying that there does not exist the quark-gluon plasma, that at the beginning of the Big Bang there existed the superquasars, [b] I foresaw existence of the analogs of the Ketterle surface and many, many others effects and I foresee that our World is 21 billion years old (counting since the Big Bang).

I calculated a few hundreds physical and cosmological quantities with high accuracy much greater than other theories. Why I am waiting already six months for decision regarding publishing. Because my theory proves that all theories connected with the structures which occurred since 1947 are incorrect.

- - - - - - Nereid, post #102 (extracts; numbering continued) - - - - -
[a] Hmm, let's see if I've understood correctly ... your idea predicts 43, good observation is 72; you claim '43' is some kind of 'global average' (though earlier, when making your claims, you omitted this important qualification) ... would it be correct to conclude that, no matter what observations show (re the Hubble constant), they cannot - even in principle - be inconsistent with your idea?

[b] OK, I seem to have missed these 'cosmological quantities' - which ones have been shown to be consistent with good observations?

- - - - Slywester, post #103 (extracts; numbering continued) - - - - -
[a] In my theory the H for the whole our World is 46, it means that our World is 21 billion years old (counting since the Big Bang – our world existed also before the Big Bang; see thread ‘Before the Big Bang’ and #1 this thread) and I gave the explanation (see #25, this thread). Of course there can exist regions with H higher than 46. Why? (see #3, thread ‘The Universe “WAS” slowing down’).

[b] The cosmological quantities which are inconsistent with my theory (not numerous) are incorrect. Cosmologists many times changed or modified their outlooks. I predicted that just after the Big Bang there existed the superquasars (2001) and they were discovered in 2005 then the inflationary theories are incorrect.

[Nereid note: I will not include SK's 'superquasars' in on-going discussion; when challenged, Sylwester was unable to substantiate his claim (see posts #122 and #131 for the key points)]

- - - - - Nereid, post #104 (extract) - - - - -
My mistake (46, not 43).

In which directions must we look to find a value of H different from the 72±8 observed 'locally'? How far away will this region be? What value of H will it have?

- - - - Slywester, post #105 (extract) - - - - -
In my theory the neutrino bulge-bubble (i.e. the dark energy) has today radius equal to 21 billion years then the Hubble constant for the dark energy has value 46 and such is age of our World. Before I explained what causes that scientists believe that the age of our World is 13.4 billion years (it means that the H=72).

- - - - - Nereid, post #106 (extract) - - - - -
Now you've got me quite confused.

The observation is that H₀ is 72.

In the concordance cosmology models, this observation is consistent with an age of ~13 billion years.

Please explain how the observation that H₀=72 (at least out to ~1 billion light-years) is consistent with your idea.

- - - - Slywester, post #107 (extract) - - - - -
It is obvious! The age of our World is connected with radius of the neutrino bulge-bubble i.e. with the dark energy because the horizon of it is moving with speed ‘c’. This radius is equal to 21 billion light-years (it means that H=46). There are stars which are 19 billion years old.
The radius of the major part of the baryon matter is equal to 13.4 billion light-years. It means that H=72 but it does not mean that the age of our World is equal to 13.4 billion years. It means that the horizon of the baryon matter is moving with speed equal to 0.64c.
I know what you now say: but there exist objects moving with velocities almost equal to ‘c’ because there is MODIFIED formula for the Doppler shift v(r)/c=[(1+v/c)^2-1]/[(1+v/c)^2+1], where v/r denotes the classical Doppler shift and for very distance objects it has values higher than ‘1’. For v/c=3 the v(r) is equal to 0.88c. And it is NOT TRUE because from my theory it results that just after the Big Bang there were most dense objects and WE MAY NOT NEGLECT THE DOPPLER EFFECT CONNECTED WITH THE RUNNING OF LIGHT IN STRONG GRAVITATIONAL FIELD. It means that for v/c=3 only 0.64c is connected with the speed of an object and 2.36 with the strong gravity! Only such interpretation leads in my theory to conclusion that inside the baryon horizon is about 5% of visible matter, 25% of dark matter and 70% of dark energy!
Assume that just after the Big Bang the density of matter was highest (in 2005 there were discovered the superquasars). They intensively evaporated on their SURFACES (we can see it on the pictures). Why only SURFACE? Because the speed of evolution is connected with density of matter. When the density is higher then the speed of evolution is lower.
The expansion of our World depends on the pressure of the dark energy (I assume that it is a neutrino bulge-bubble) which repulses the galaxies, depends of the intensity of the evaporation of the black holes (built of neutrons) which also repulses the galaxies, and depends of the gravitational attraction.
Because for the first few billion years the black holes evaporated only on the surface then the gravitational attraction was stronger than the repulsive forces. If we assume that the intensity of the evaporation of black holes increased a few billion years ago then there we can observe the acceleration of the expansion (precisely the acceleration of expansion of the galaxies). We cannot observe acceleration of the horizon i.e. of the surface of the neutrino bulge-bubble because speed of it is equal to 'c'.

[Nereid note: As Slywester was not, subsequently, able to substantiate his claim that 'There are stars which are 19 billion years old', I will not include this topic in our ongoing discussions.]

(to be continued)

Continuing with the cutting and pasting ...

- - - - - - Nereid, post #109 (extract) - - - - -
Just so that I understand correctly: in your idea, the observed H₀ (~72) arises from the fact that the baryonic matter which makes up the stars, galaxies, etc which astronomers detect with their telescopes originated in some sort of 'bang' approx 13 billion years ago?

That there is other baryonic matter, which originated in other, earlier, 'bangs'?

That there is no way astronomers could observe anything, today, and derive a value of 46 for H₀?

- - - - Slywester, post #110 (extract) - - - - -
My answer was very precise. Why I must second time answer the same question? It does not look seriously.
There was only one the Big Bang. The horizon of the neutrino bulge-bubble (dark energy) expands with speed 'c' (H=46), the horizon of the visible and dark matter expands with speed 0.64c (H=72). Today the RADIUS of the neutrino bulge-bubble is 21 billion light-years (H=46). That means that our World is 21 billion years old and such age have the baryon matter TODAY. Today the RADIUS of the baryon bubble is 13.4 billion light-years (H=72). For the distant objects the red shift is higher than '1' because of the running of light in strong gravitational field. For example the red shift connected with this phenomenon for 10 the typical black holes densely packed is equal to v/c=2.2
The explanation of the age of our World is simple in my theory because my theory assumes that just after the Big Bang there were the most dense objects i.e. the protogalaxies.
You see that the visible World has radius equal to 13.4 billion light-years but there can exist stars which age is equal to 19-21 billion years!
Whole baryon matter inside the neutrino bulge-bubble we can observe. Probability says that some objects had to reach speeds higher than 0.64c. For these objects the H must have smaller value than H=72.
Is it clear?

- - - - - - Nereid, post #113 (extract) - - - - -
No, it is not at all clear.

Let's review what this 'H' is, shall we?

We take a spectrum of a few (hundred) thousand galaxies.

We identify absorption lines in the spectra of (most of) these galaxies.

We calculate the observed wavelength of these absorption lines, and compare them with the wavelengths of the same transitions, obseved in the lab; from this we calculate the 'redshift' of these galaxies.

We look for 'standard candles' in the galaxies - Cepheids, supernovae (of several types), surface brightness fluctuations, lensing, Tully-Fisher, fundamental plane, ... We use 'distance ladder' (or 'global', e.g. lensing) methods to estimate the distance to the galaxies.

We plot the estimated distance against the observed redshift. The plot is a straight line. The slope of the line is H. We measure the slope as 72±8 km/s/Mpc. (caveat: for sufficiently large redshift, the plot is no longer a straight line; for the purposes of this post, let's focus only on the straight line portion of the plot).

Let's examine what 'H=46' would mean.

It could mean the redshifts are 'wrong', or the distance estimates are 'wrong' (or both). If anyone would like to make a case that the redshifts are 'wrong', please do so; until and unless someone does make such a case, I will assume that these redshift observations are sound.

If H is 'really' 46 and not 72, what would this mean in terms of our standard candles? Let's hear what Sylwester has to say (after he returns from his holiday)! Of course, if anyone else wants to make a case that our distance estimates are 'wrong', please let's hear it!

Perhaps there's another way out? Perhaps the objects Sylwester is referring to - which would, when plotted on a z-distance chart give a straight line, slope 46 - are not galaxies (and associated objects, such as stars, HII regions, PNe, globular clusters, ...)?

- - - - Slywester, post #114 - - - - -
NEREID, you are right and I am right.
Once more.
IN MY MODEL OUR YOUNG WORLD WAS CREATED INSIDE THE SUPERTORUS AS THE LOOP BUILT OF THE PROTOGALAXIES GROUPED IN LARGER STRUCTURES (the protogalaxies were built of the typical black holes). After transition THE SUPERWORLD---THE NEUTRINO (the Big Collapse) there remained the neutrinos from the decays of neutrons the Superworld was built of (i.e. the dark energy). The mass of these neutrinos (i.e. the dark energy - the neutrino bulge-bubble) is 10.77 times greater than the mass of our World i.e. than the visible and dark baryon matter. After the Big Collapse there was the Big Bang of our young World. So at the beginning there were two fractions:
1.the dark energy built of very light neutrinos
2.the very dense protogalaxies (today they are the visible and dark matter in proportion about 20% the visible matter and about 80% the dark matter)

It is obvious that the horizon of the first fraction (the dark energy) is expanding with speed equal to 'c' then the H=46 (you know that the free neutrinos are moving with velocity equal to 'c').
From observational facts it results that the horizon of the second fraction (the visible and dark matter) IS EXPANDING WITH SPEED EQUAL TO v=0.64c (then the H=72) because the Big Bang caused by the violent evaporation of the typical black holes and by the dark energy was too weak to accelerate the most speedy protogalaxies to the speed of light!!!!
The rest red shift is because of the strong gravitational field of the very dense protogalaxies!!!

How we may calculate the age of our World?
Because the life-time of our World is equal to the ratio of the radius of the horizon to the speed of horizon then:
Life-time=radius of dark energy/c=radius of visible and dark energy/0.64c=21 billion years. It also means that the radius of the neutrino bulge-bubble is today equal to 21 billion light-years and that the radius of the visible and dark matter bubble is today equal to about 13.4 billion light-years (BUT THE AGE OF OUR WORLD IS EQUAL TO 21 BILLION YEARS).

From observational facts it results that percentage is as follows:
About 5% visible matter
About 20% dark matter
About 70% dark energy
From my theory it results that percentage is as follows:
1.7% visible matter
6.8% dark matter
91.5% dark energy
WHY SUCH DIFFERENCE?????
In world with underrated age there does not change the proportion between the visible and the dark baryon matter however the dark hot energy built of the neutrinos is reduced to 91.5%(0.6)3=19.8%. After the increase of the sum of the percentages to 100% we get respectively: 6%(74%H+26%He), 24%, 70%, however the values got when we make use of the formula v/c=[(1+z)^2 - 1]/[(1+z)^2 + 1] are respectively: 5%(74%H+26%He), 25%, 70%. We see good accordance between these two sets of percentages because some of stars of the second generation were exploded then there is little less of the visible baryon matter and little more of the dark baryon matter.

My theory is correct for sure because is able to give answers to questions the other theories cannot, and these answers are consistent with the observational facts and experimental data, AND MY THEORY IS DUAL FOR THE PARTICLE PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY (see the strong interactions in my theory and the creation of our World in my theory, or the Titius-Bode law inside the nucleons and for the solar system, or the torus inside the neutrinos and nucleons and the Supertorus, or the strong loop inside the nucleons and the loop of our young World).

- - - - - - Nereid, post #121 (extract) - - - - -
Specifically, a plot (or chart) of the observed redshift vs the observed (inferred?) distance of which objects has a slope of 46 km/s/Mpc?

[Nereid note: Sylwester's post (above, #114) began two sets of open questions - what is the cause of the observed redshift, esp for high-z objects; and the nature of dark matter. These will be brought across in subsequent posts]

- - - - Slywester, post #130 (extract) - - - - -
The H=46 has the dark energy and minimally higher value has the CMBR. The H=72 has the baryon matter.

- - - - - - Nereid, post #137 (extract) - - - - -
You seem to be saying that only 'dark energy' would have an H of 46, please clarify.

- - - - Slywester, post #141 (extract) - - - - -
The dark energy it is the neutrino bulge-bubble.
The CMBR it is the photon bulge-bubble.
It means that the horizons of these bulge-bubbles extend with speed ‘c’.
The dark energy was created in the Big Collapse of the Superworld i.e. just before the Big Bang.
The CMBR was created several hundred thousand years after the Big Bang because of the creation of nuclei.
It means that the radius of the CMBR horizon is only insignificantly smaller than the radius of the dark energy horizon.

- - - - - - Nereid, post #147 (extract) - - - - -
I'm still quite confused.

"H" is the 'Hubble constant'. The redshift of light from distant objects is observed to be proportional to their distance, 'H' is the number quantifying that proportionality. It is not a theoretical construct, but a number obtained from observations.

It seems you are using 'H' to mean something quite different, but I can't figure out what.

So perhaps we should clear that up first; when you refer to 'H', what do you mean? Specifically, how does your definition of 'H' differ from the way the term is used in astronomy (and cosmology)?

- - - - Slywester, post #148 - - - - -
The Hubble constant for the distant objects is defined as follows:
H=3.2 . 10^-6 v/r [km s^-1 Mps^-1] where ‘v’ is the speed of a distant object in [m/s] and ‘r’ is the distance to this distant object in [billion light-years]. For example when a distant object is moving with speed v=0.64c and is in distance 13.4 billion light-years then the H=72, when a most distant neutrino in the neutrino bulge-bubble or a most distant photon in the CMBR is moving with speed v=c and are in distance 21 billion light-years then H=46.
The ‘r’ to a distant object (for example to a distant galaxy) is calculated for example from the luminosity of supernova of the type Ia in the moment of explosion because such supernova has in the moment of explosion always the same the absolute magnitude (it is cosmic candela).
The ‘v’ to a distant object is calculated from the redshift. With these calculations is many problems. Why?
In the good past there was applied for the redshift the classic Doppler formula z(Doppler)=v/c. In my opinion it is correct formula. For example if from an observation results that z(Doppler)=1 then v=c, when z(Doppler)=0.5 then v=0.5c.

And now I describe the big mistake made by astronomers.

After discovery of the objects for which the redshift has values larger than ‘1’ there was introduced instead the z(Doppler) following wrong formula:
z=v(r)/c=[(1+z(Doppler))^2 – 1]/(1+z(Doppler))^2 + 1]
What it means? It means that when for example a distant object is moving with speed v=c i.e. z(Doppler)=1 then from the wrong formula we obtain that v(r)=0.6c, when the redshift is equal to ‘3’ then v(r)=0.88c.
Why was introduced the wrong formula? Because this formula SAVE the inflationary model. In this model whole redshift is connected with the Doppler shift.