a_plutonium wrote:
Now I have listed these supporting evidences according to what I deem
the greatest weight of support
Observational and experimental support
1) density and distribution of galaxies
2) Tifft quantized galaxy speeds
3) layered age of Cosmos with 6.5 billion years old Cosmos yet old galaxies
of the Uranium atom totality 20.2 billion years old; the Freedman versus
Sandage data
4) uniform blackbody 2.71 K cosmic microwave background radiation
5) Dark Night sky Olber's Paradox
6) missing mass conundrum
7) distribution of chemical elements
8) color of the cosmos Johns Hopkins Univ findings
Mathematical and logic beauty support
9) Atomic Theory as the foundation of science universal law
10) inverse fine structure constant and proton to electron mass ratio
11) pi e explained
It used to be in the late 1990s that the best supporting evidence for
the Atom Totality theory was not the Tifft quantized galaxy speeds nor
the blackbody Cosmic microwave background radiation nor the missing
mass, but the age of the Cosmos and the age of the oldest stars.
I am recounting the history of the 1990s as best my memory can recall.
The Freedman team was working on the age of the overall Cosmos and the
Sandage team profiled the age of the oldest stars. And when the
Freedman team announced publically worldwide their findings if I
remember correctly they said the Cosmos was 7 billion years old. While
years prior, Sandage had kept getting older and older ages for stars
and was approaching 20 billion years.
So right away, since the world was deeply in love with the Big Bang
theory, that the pressure was on for Freedman to scale up or fudge up
her 7 billion years and for Sandage to fudge down his 20 billion years.
If you thought corporate corruption of cooking the books or fudging the
data in corporate America in the late 1990s with Enron and WorldCom
were outrageous, well in my estimation what Freedman and Sandage did
for ages of Cosmos and stars, in my opinion was on the same level of
reason gone berserk.
In the Big Bang theory, of course, if Freedman says the Cosmos is 7
billion years old and Sandage says the oldest star is 20 billion years
old, of course that makes no sense. But in the Atom Totality theory,
you see, the Universe is layers of age, like a onion is layers of age
growth. So that the Sandage 20 billion year old (correct me if wrong
but memory was some Cepheid variables or was it supernova?) stars could
have been the older layer of the Uranium Atom Totality and where
Freedman was getting an age of the overall Cosmos as 7 billion years
old because she was measuring the newer layer of the Universe-- the
Plutonium Atom Totality layer.
So in an Atom Totality the universe is layered ages and thus the
Freedman and Sandage reports favor the Atom Totality. And here we have
a case of where scientist are disobeying the profession of science
itself. That the data is true and correct and the theory has to be
adjusted or discarded of the Big Bang. And that the moment scientists
fudge their data to converge in the middle with one age, well, they
stopped being scientists.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.
|
