> The article fits the ring-around-the-rosey setup of today's peer review tied into governmednt grants. Scientists work with other peoples' money. not like Darwin. Their depencency creates this mess. There should be a solution, but with tight peer review no way. I lived in a day when I could submit an article (and I did) and the journal was free to accept it or not on its merits, as they saw it.-An excellent review of the fraudulent science problem by a scientist who was caught:-http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57738/


> The article is rather long, and I had to skim quite a lot of the detail, but it needs to be read. Just how much science can we take on trust? As Stephen Hawking has shown, you can chuck in any old theory you like (apart from God, of course), so long as you've got the right connections in the science world. If you haven't, no-one will listen. As a non-scientist I find it confusing and depressing, but at the same time there is a kind of perverse pleasure to be derived from the fact that materialism continues to chase its own tail.-The article fits the ring-around-the-rosey setup of today's peer review tied into governmednt grants. Scientists work with other peoples' money. not like Darwin. Their depencency creates this mess. There should be a solution, but with tight peer review no way. I lived in a day when I could submit an article (and I did) and the journal was free to accept it or not on its merits, as they saw it.

As I noted in the past I don't like consensus science, as much as I dislike peer review. but with all the mainline cosmologists and particle physicists agreeing at the 90% level, I can't waste my reading time on an electromagnetic theory that takes in the whole universe instead of the recognized e-m from the sun and all other plasma objects in the universe. Since I started in the early 1980's I'm at 153 books (just counted for sake of argument) and counting, with two new ones ordered. I have no idea how many articles, plus my medical reading until I retired. Then I had time to write two books, one political, the other sciencevsreligion, both published by publishers. Now I am considering attacking Dawkins.--You should really, really review the plasma models before you discredit them. The fact that the BBT had to move to a pseudo plasma model only reinforces that.
Plasma models DO take in the recognized e-m from the sun, they also explain the filamentary structural we see in space, the short timelines needed for creation of stars, the spiral structures of the galaxies, the cellular structure of the universe, the heavy element content of the universe, the lack of mass needed to form the gravitational fields to cause the observable effects, the CMBR, and the list goes on.-(4) The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
 
The average speed of galaxies through space is a well-measured quantity. At those speeds, galaxies would require roughly the age of the universe to assemble into the largest structures (superclusters and walls) we see in space [[17]], and to clear all the voids between galaxy walls. But this assumes that the initial directions of motion are special, e.g., directed away from the centers of voids. To get around this problem, one must propose that galaxy speeds were initially much higher and have slowed due to some sort of "viscosity" of space. To form these structures by building up the needed motions through gravitational acceleration alone would take in excess of 100 billion years. [[18]]-[[17]] (2001), Science 291, 579-581.
[[18]] E.J. Lerner (1991), The Big Bang Never Happened, Random House, New York, pp. 23 & 28.-Oh! Go after Dawkins, I would buy your books just to support you then :P


> > If your reasoning is true, how come all the elements are here, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old by uranium aging?
> > > 
> 
> 4.5by just reduces the timeline for all the other stuff to happen by .7by. There are other ways for the mass to form, and within the given timeline. That was one of the points of the Plasma model that hooked me. It fits the data.-
This reasoning was just covered in my last post. There was lots of time for the 92 elements to be present, partially because they are here now. We have no idea how many supermassive stars were present in the beginning. Certainly there not many now, but that makes sense in the standard theory.-As I noted in the past I don't like consensus science, as much as I dislike peer review. but with all the mainline cosmologists and particle physicists agreeing at the 90% level, I can't waste my reading time on an electromagnetic theory that takes in the whole universe instead of the recognized e-m from the sun and all other plasma objects in the universe. Since I started in the early 1980's I'm at 153 books (just counted for sake of argument) and counting, with two new ones ordered. I have no idea how many articles, plus my medical reading until I retired. Then I had time to write two books, one political, the other sciencevsreligion, both published by publishers. Now I am considering attacking Dawkins.


> Note: This makes no mention of the time it takes to REACH the main sequence, or the subsequent stages after finishing the main sequence BEFORE going nova/supernova.-Stars started forming as plasma left the ionized state, early in the first billion years, say at 200 million.
> 
> 
> Also scientist do not know how old a star is, and it is near impossible for them to tell.-Not true: see this website for Wikipedia. Look at age section and then scroll down to "Mass". One theory is that many of the early stars were supermassive:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star#Age
> 
> Even IF, it only took 1by years for the largest(also the fewest) stars to reach the point of going super nova, there still would not have been enough supernova to create all the heavier elements in the universe. -Wikipedia above refutes that suggestion.-My little formula was only meant to show, that if you take into account the lifespan of stars (including the necessary time for them to form, become main sequence, go through their main sequence, evolve, go through the next phase, then go supernova, there would not be enough TIME for the heavier elements that they produce to conglomerate into the the planets. And EVEN IF there were enough time for them to form the planets, there would still not be enough time for the earth to evolve along the evolutionary accepted timeline of 3.7by.-The Earth is 4.5 byo, by uranium aging.


> If your reasoning is true, how come all the elements are here, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old by uranium aging?
> > -4.5by just reduces the timeline for all the other stuff to happen by .7by. There are other ways for the mass to form, and within the given timeline. That was one of the points of the Plasma model that hooked me. It fits the data.-
> 
> I not blinded, you are by skepticism and I believe a lack of broad enough reading. Gamow predicted 6 K, not 40, as your suggested website states:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation-Even a revised figure of 6k is still well beyond the observations of 2.725k by serious amount. Also, the link I sit quoted "Gamow's upward-revised estimate of 50°K made in 1961"-There are a number of papers linked herethat discuss the problems listed on that website in detail.

Supernovas are much larger than our sun with its 10 billion year lifetime. Being bigger they blow up much sooner. If the potential supernova is 20 times the mass of our sun it will blow up rougly 20 times sooner. Your formula is completely wrong.
> > 
> > http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.h... 
> Supernovae is not a type(classification) of a star, it is the action of a larger star that sheds mass once it reaches a certain point in its life cycle. What you are referring to is the Red Giant phase. However, your reference to 20xmass=1/20th of the lifespan is not mentioned anywhere in that article. Do you have a reference for that?-Cannot find exact reference I saw a couple days ago but try these:-http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.html--
http://aspire.cosmic-ray.org/labs/star_life/starlife_equilibrium.html-
In contrast with our sun, which is really a main sequence star, massive stars live very short lives, perhaps only millions of years, before they develop dead iron cores and explode as a supernova. The core of a dying massive star may form a neutron star or black hole, but the outermost parts of the exploded star return to the interstellar medium from which they came.-http://www.telescope.org/pparc/res8.html-
STAR 
A star is a luminous globe of gas producing its own heat and light by nuclear reactions (nuclear fusion). They are born from nebulae and consist mostly of hydrogen and helium gas. Surface temperatures range from 2000�C to above 30,000�C, and the corresponding colours from red to blue-white. The brightest stars have masses 100 times that of the Sun and emit as much light as millions of Suns. They live for less than a million years before exploding as supernovae. The faintest stars are the red dwarfs, less than one-thousandth the brightness of the Sun. -http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/rel_stars.html-Since stars have a limited supply of hydrogen in their cores, they have a limited lifetime as main sequence stars. This lifetime is proportional to f M / L, where f is the fraction of the total mass of the star, M, available for nuclear burning in the core and L is the average luminosity of the star during its main sequence lifetime. Because of the strong dependence of luminosity on mass, stellar lifetimes depend sensitively on mass. Thus, it is fortunate that our Sun is not more massive than it is since high mass stars rapidly exhaust their core hydrogen supply. Once a star exhausts its core hydrogen supply, the star becomes redder, larger, and more luminous: it becomes a red giant star. This relationship between mass and lifetime enables astronomers to put a lower limit on the age of the universe.-Quotes are from sites above. I was NOT discussing red giants. Supernovae are of two types. They have their own sequences. Your formula is of no value.-Read in Wikipedia for overall view:-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution

Supernovas are much larger than our sun with its 10 billion year lifetime. Being bigger they blow up much sooner. If the potential supernova is 20 times the mass of our sun it will blow up rougly 20 times sooner. Your formula is completely wrong.
> 
> http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.h... is not a type(classification) of a star, it is the action of a larger star that sheds mass once it reaches a certain point in its life cycle. What you are referring to is the Red Giant phase. However, your reference to 20xmass=1/20th of the lifespan is not mentioned anywhere in that article. Do you have a reference for that?-From your link:-"Like low-mass stars, high-mass stars are born in nebulae and evolve and live in the Main Sequence. However, their life cycles start to differ after the red giant phase. A massive star will undergo a supernova explosion. If the remnant of the explosion is 1.4 to about 3 times as massive as our Sun, it will become a neutron star."

In the ontological thread, someone posted that I thought all stars went nova/supernova at 10by old. That is not what I said at all. I said:
> 
> The universe is 13.7 billion years old. The lifecycle of a star, before it goes nova even once, call it avg 10by. 13.7by-10by=3.7by. That would mean that the Age of any planetary body other than stars, since they are comprised of heavier elements, could not be more than 3.7b years old. Even if they were formed directly from the output of a single Supernova. The earth is estimated 4.6b years old.
> 
> Some will take much much longer, others not as long. -Supernovas are much larger than our sun with its 10 billion year lifetime. Being bigger they blow up much sooner. If the potential supernova is 20 times the mass of our sun it will blow up rougly 20 times sooner. Your formula is completely wrong.-http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/teachers/lessons/xray_spectra/background-lifecycles.html


> > Dark matter is currently understood to simply be matter that doesn't emit light; we don't know its composition for sure, but some suspect it's "normal matter." Alternatively, one paper I read said that the Dark Matter we're predicting is actually only due to statistical error if we abandon the notion that matter is distributed evenly throughout the universe.
> 
> Part of the beauty of the plasma model is that it doesn't require even distribution of matter, so it does not require untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis.-But getting rid of the "cosmological principle" won't be a fun job for anyone who tries to fight up that hill. -My hat's off to them, though.

One of my biggest problems is that I read through so many darn web papers every day, and don't book mark them. I will try to be a little more diligent in referencing my statements.-Coming from a very skeptical position, you need to.