Shawn wrote:

So forget the data that supports the Big Bang? Your model needs to
convincingly explain this FIRST. If not, your dead in the water.
When I searched your site for "red shift" I came up with zippo.

What did you search the site with Shawn? The search engine at the bottom of
each page in the site, which contains a book that is 340 pages long,
provides positive search results for both "red shift" and "redshift". Under
Highlights and Overview of Scientific Theory on the Home Page, the "Large
Scale Structure of Universe" hyperlink specifically cites the galaxy
redshift surveys, including illustration and citing of the recently
completed 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey (Colless et al. 2003). The following
excerpt from Chapter 4 discusses the red shift of the galaxies in
relationship to the Big Bang (Click Table of Contents, Chapter 4, Hyperlink
Gravity Implosion/Energy Explosion Model of Big Bang):



"This theory provides a conceptual model for the cause of the Big Bang, a
model in which the cause is just as accessible and subject to the laws of
physics and scientific research as the result.

I have difficulty trying to envision the entire physical universe beginning
from a single point, the Point of Singularity of the Big Bang. I understand
how the red shift of the galaxies is evidence for the expansion of the
intergalactic universe, and I understand how this expansion can be
extrapolated back to a Point of Singularity, but when I consider the
magnitude of what was going on at the time of the Big-Bang beginning of
atomic physical existence, and the timeframes in which the origin of the
universe is said to have occurred, I become somewhat confused: such that the
physical universe is said to have come into existence from a single Big Bang
that is roughly estimated to have occurred sometime between 10 and 20
billion years ago, and the Big Bang is said to have materialized the total
baryonic mass of the entire physical universe into existence within one
second and, according to one article I read recently about baryonogenesis
during the Big Bang, "the creation of the excess baryons occurred when the
universe was about one thousandth of a billionth of a second old."

This is confusing because the scale of reference for the Point of
Singularity of the Big Bang origin of the universe leaps back and forth
between astronomically different orders of magnitude, from "universe" to
"galaxies" to "subatomic particles" without clear distinction.
Disorientation about the mass magnitude of the subject can occur because the
word "Big Bang" is used interchangeably to describe the origin of the
universe as a whole and the origin of atoms, without scientists remembering
that they are talking about two separate scientific subjects that are at
most only hypothetically related to a common cause: 1) the origin of the
atoms, 2) the expansion of the universe as measured by the red shift of the
galaxies. So the complex processes involved in the origin and evolution of
the physical universe are being lumped together as a group around a term
that was originally defined as a mathematical Point of Singularity. As a
result, the origin of the total baryonic mass of the entire physical
universe has been crammed into an unrealistic timeframe of a single second.

My sense of proportion has a lot of difficulty with the notion of a
single-second Big BANG hurtling the galaxies apart for 20 billion years and
leaving a slowly fading afterglow of cosmic microwave background radiation
throughout the Cosmos as scientific evidence of a single immense historical
explosion. By contrast, the Big Bang as the process that formed the hydrogen
atoms seems like a very realistic theory because we know that atoms exist
and we know what they are made of-that atoms are made of a nucleus and
orbiting electrons, that the nucleus is made of baryons (protons and
neutrons), and baryons are made of quarks and gluon-so we know what had to
come first and what had to come next: first came the quarks and gluon, then
came the baryons, then came the atoms when the atomic nuclei were coupled
with orbiting electrons."



The entire scientific world assumes for a fact that all of the hydrogen in
the universe was formed fait accompli 10 to 20 billion years ago by the
single Big Bang, long before the galaxies began to form. On the blind side
of this assumption, nobody even considers for a moment that the Cosmic
Plasma Jets exploding out of Quasars and Active Galactic Nuclei (AGNs),
which are the most powerful explosions in the universe occurring in the most
extreme supermassive densities in the universe, may be the Big-Bang process
of hydrogen production exploding into evidence right in front of our eyes!

The insight and evidence I have assembled shows that hydrogen is being
produced by an ongoing process within each quasar, for which I coined the
term "Ongoing Big-Bang" to emphasize the ongoing nature of the
nucleosynthesis process. After demonstrating through evidence that this is
indeed how all the hydrogen in the universe is formed, I showed how this
"Ongoing Big-Bang" process gives rise to the growth and evolution of each
active galaxy, which defines the Mainstream Sequence of Galaxy Evolution!
This is an entirely new scientific insight Shawn. You can download Chapter 1
Introduction with just a click of your finger. Chapter 1 Introduction shows
how the 4-spatial dimensions of this theory correlates directly with
Einstein's Space-Time model of the universe.



With regard,



Paul Hollister

author of Origin and Evolution of the Universe, a Unified Scientific Theory
http://www.Origin-of-Universe.com

email address: