Hello Tomod
What part did you want me to back up?
red shift comment
quote:link:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
"These sets of objects are not illusions or mirages - rather, they are visual proof that Arp is indeed correct in what he says: Young, high redshift objects are ejected from the centers of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and Seyfert galaxies. The images show exactly that happening.
The most (in)famous of these supposed "mirages" is the so-called "Einstein Cross" which is simply another example of objects in the process of being formed and ejected from the nucleus of an active galaxy. Arp has observed plasma clouds (whose light is strongly redshifted) connecting the ejected objects in the Einstein Cross.
So, modern mainstream astronomy is full of "illusions" and "mirages" (their explanation of why we should not believe our eyes) and "strange and dark" energy, matter, "neutron stars" and "black holes", none of which have ever been seen or photographed but whose existence they continually invoke in order to save their otherwise failed theories. Their attitude is, "Don't believe what you see; believe what we tell you!"
Arp says we should believe our own eyes rather than the tall tales of black-holes, and gravitational lensing told by the defenders of mainstream astronomy and cosmology whose continued research funding depends on their not rocking the boat of established theory"
Big Ban busted by 33 scientists;
re link:
http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm
quote:
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.
In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, RAISE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF THE UNDERLYING THEORY.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation." and so on read the link
star fomations
see links
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/...Star+Formation
http://www2.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Bima/StarForm.html
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/swas/science1.html
http://www.stsci.edu/stsci/meetings/shst2/ballyj.html
http://www.ipac.caltech.edu/2mass/ga...ages_ysos.html
Nulea synthesis in stars
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...nucsyn.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...ucbin2.html#c1
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...fusion.html#c1
our sun the Iron star
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960521.html
http://fusedweb.pppl.gov/CPEP/Chart_...SunLayers.html
http://web.umr.edu/~om/report_to_fcr/report_to_fcr1.htm
