Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply
wrote in message ...
In article , greywolf42
writes:

They are 'explained' by the current model of the big bang. However, the
'big bang' is really a set of different theories that include one basic
event: the expansion of the 'cosmic egg.' (Lemaitre, I believe.) "Red
shift" was the foundation of the original theory termed 'big bang'.

There is some serious confusion here. Yes, Lemaitre was the first to
extensively discuss the "cosmic egg". The redshift was predicted
somewhat earlier by de Sitter and for a time the cosmological red****
was known as the "de Sitter effect".

There is no confusion at all.

We agree that the big bang is essentially the theory that the universe
expanded from a hotter, denser state---the cosmic egg, if you like.

That is the commonality between the various theories that are often lumped
together as the 'big bang.'


This
was renovated by adjusting contants to match observed light elements
(big
bang, version 2.0). This was later upgraded to BB 3.0: CMBR.

There is nothing 'wrong' with ad hoc adjustments of a theory. But such
'observations' are not substantive support for a theory -- as they've
been
put in 'by hand' to match the observations, after the fact. For this
reason, prediction is preferred to ad hoc adjustment.

You have it backwards. The CMBR was PREDICTED (by Gamow in 1948 or so)
long before it was observed (Penzias and Wilson, 1965 or so).

Flatly untrue, though commonly believed. This is one of the myths of
science. See the thread "Gamow's CMBR 'prediction' claims finally put to
rest?" on the following thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0nntp2.onemain.
com

Similarly, predictions of the relative abundances of light elements were
on the record before these were observed.

Your statement contradicts the texts I've seen. Please identify the
specific reference(s) that first predicted the abundances of the light
elements.

It did NOT happen that some
arbitrary values were observed and then the big-bang theory made to fit
them, as if it could be made to fit any values. (Gamow also did some
work on element synthesis.)

Your claim is unsupported, and -- I believe -- incorrect. I await
substantiation of the 'light element' claim.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas