Science Forums 2

[enorbet2]

Hello Pluto
I honestly don't yet understand what you're "on about" since often you seem to contradict yourself and resort to non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Authors: E.Komatsu, N.Afshordi, N.Bartolo, D.Baumann, J.R.Bond, E.I.Buchbinder, C.T.Byrnes, X.Chen, D.J.H.Chung, A.Cooray, P.Creminelli, N.Dalal, O.Dore, R.Easther, A.V.Frolov, K.M.Gorski, M.G. Jackson, J.Khoury, W.H.Kinney, L.Kofman, K.Koyama, L.Leblond, J.-L.Lehners, J.E.Lidsey, M.Liguori, E.A.Lim, A.Linde, D.H.Lyth, J.Maldacena, S.Matarrese, L.McAllister, P.McDonald, S.Mukohyama, B.Ovrut, H.V.Peiris, C.Raeth, A.Riotto, Y.Rodriguez, M.Sasaki, R.Scoccimarro, D.Seery, E.Sefusatti, U.Seljak, L.Senatore, S.Shandera, E.P.S.Shellard, E.Silverstein, A.Slosar, K.M.Smith, A.A.Starobinsky, P.J.Steinhardt, F.Takahashi, M.Tegmark, A.J.Tolley, L.Verde, B.D.Wandelt, D.Wands, S.Weinberg, M.Wyman, A.P.S.Yadav, M.Zaldarriaga
(Submitted on 27 Feb 2009 (v1), last revised 19 Apr 2009 (this version, v4))

This, for example is simple name dropping because without explaining what contribution each made it means nothing on it's own. Even if every one were a bona fide, peer reviewed, respected scientist the mere mention of their names means nothing. On top of that it isn't even stated that they all agree on something or if that something is a "fishing expedition" (still quite valid but not yet even theory, merely data gathering) or actually on some theory and predictions that can be tested and falsified.

Originally Posted by Pluto

Although there are terms that I disagree with particularly early and late universe implying fact that has no evidence but theories. The paper has logic.

Here you baffle me since you seem to be using theory in the popular sense which is barely above "what if?" as in the way zealots who have no understanding of what it takes to be a theory snigger at Evolution as "just a theory" as if it were mere opinion or a dream sequence.

Earlier in this thread you mentioned that (paraphrasing, so please correct me if I am inaccurate) "everywhere, even in Deep Field, galaxies are the same" which is patently false ( see The Birth and Formation of Galaxies ) where it states (as do numerous other sources)

Looking beyond our galaxy with current telescopes, astronomers can study both middle-aged and mature galaxies. When NASA's Hubble Space Telescope was pointed at one tiny speck of sky for 10 days, the resulting image provided the most detailed view of the early universe ever obtained. The image contains a bewildering assortment: 1,500 galaxies at various stages of evolution, some dating back to the time when the universe was only a billion years old.

Within this deep-field image are recognizable shapes: spherical galaxies called ellipticals, reddish in color by virtue of their light from mature stars, and crystal blue spiral galaxies, blazing from the glow of their hot, young stars. There are also strange, "tadpole"-like objects, disturbed and apparently merging galaxies dubbed "train wrecks," as well as a multitude of faint, "dwarf" galaxies. Some of these objects may date back to the first generation of galaxies and stars. Did these cosmic shards and fragments evolve into today's recognizable galaxies? Are they as small as they appear, but bright from great bursts of star formation? Or, are they massive, with much of their stellar population hidden from view by clouds of dust?

You also asked

Originally Posted by Pluto

Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years and within those galaxies you will find at the centre some superdooper black holes ( condensed matter) having a mass over 18 billion solar masses having a life span over 10 ^ 69 yrs ( This info can be supported by Hubble site info).Tell me what sense does the BBT explain how over 100 billion galaxies formed in just 500 million years and within those galaxies you will find at the centre some superdooper black holes ( condensed matter) having a mass over 18 billion solar masses having a life span over 10 ^ 69 yrs ( This info can be supported by Hubble site info).

This hasn't changed much in over 30 years! Consider this old gem, still unsuccessfully challenged. Cosmos: Shape of the Universe : Video : Science Channel

Just because the phenomenon of galaxy formation is not yet well understood doesn't mean any opinion will do nor does it mean there is some gaping hole in the Standard Model since after all this time with so many advances, nothing yet explains so much so well.

You still seem to be chipping away at the edges, at the least well understood stuff, as if that is going to defeate the entire thing and there just isn't a deal-breaker yet. It may be possible soon with some of the new amazing experiments in progress as we speak, but it is going to have to "beat the champ" so style alone won't cut it. It's going to have to be a knockout blow and after nearly 100 years, it really isn't likely, absent some major technological breakthrough so far non-existant.