1. Coles, Peter and Lucchin, Francesco, Cosmology: The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure, 2nd ed. (Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2002)
2. Mcfadden, Lucy-Ann; Weissman, Paul R. And Johnson, Torrence V. eds., Encyclopedia of the Solar System, 2nd ed. (Boston: Academic Press, 2007).
3. Wilson, Robert, Astronomy through the Ages: The Story of the Human Attempt to Understand the Universe (London: Taylor & Francis, 1997)
Wilson, Robert, Astronomy through the Ages: The Story of the Human Attempt to Understand the Universe (London: Taylor & Francis, 1997) 36.
Peter Coles, and Francesco Lucchin, Cosmology: The Origin and Evolution of Cosmic Structure, 2nd ed. (Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, 2002)
* Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity: Big bang theorists claim that all of our heavier radioactive elements were created in the supernova explosion of stars (a hypothesis now ). But regardless of how materialists claim that the heavier elements might have formed in space, such a story of origins then predicts a relatively uniform distribution of these elements, for example, throughout the Earth's crust. However, Krauss agreed with Enyart's statement on air that ninety percent of Earth's radioactivity (uranium, thorium, etc.) is concentrated in the continental crust! That 90% is not in the enormous amount of the crust which lies under the oceans, nor in the mantel or core. Rather, Earth's radioactivity is concentrated in 1/3rd of 1% of our planet's mass, in the continental crust. Further, as Krauss admitted, uranium is preferentially concentrated near granite! This is a further and powerful contradiction of the big bang model's explanation of planetary origins. Krauss did offer a partial explanation: that uranium was originally distributed throughout (an ) molten earth, but being a large atom, it floated upward toward the surface. However, if so, then the gold in the crust to the core. And Krauss doesn't explain why the uranium avoided the oceanic crust, nor why it is preferentially near granite. The creationists, on the other hand, have a as to why radioactivity is concentrated around continental granitic crust. (See also below, the missing uniform and see too that RSR joins in the , which also helps to falsify big bang chemical evolution theory, that .)
* Solar system formation theory wrong too: From its physics to its major predictions, the evidence against the nebular hypothesis of solar system formation has mounted to where the theory has failed. The California Institute of Technology manages . Caltech's astronomer Mike Brown : “Before we ever discovered any [planets outside the solar system] we thought we understood the formation of planetary systems pretty deeply… It was a really beautiful theory. And, clearly, thoroughly wrong." Exoplanet discoveries, with their different than what has been predicted for decades by the standard model of solar system formation, including with their retrograde orbits, highly inclined orbits and hot jupiters, have effectively falsified that model. So, the impressive scientific discoveries that taken together completely include:
- exoplanets contradicting the predictions of the theory
- the theory
- that our
- that our
- the contrary-to-expectations
- the many contrary-to-expectations in the solar system
- has similarly intractable physics problems
- contrary to an Oort or Kuiper origin, comets contain earth-like minerals and
- short-period comets still exist even though they have
- that than can be accounted for by evolutionary accretion
- that .
So the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the BBC, Nova, , , etc., wrongly built public confidence in that secular origins story. The longstanding claims of solar system formation were invented ad hoc to account for the particulars of our own solar system. Now that are being discovered, the story telling will simply become, as with and , shall we say, more complex.
National Science Education Standards :
Science as Inquiry
- Abilities necessary to do scientific research
- Understandings about scientific inquiry
Earth and Space Science
- Earth in the solar system
Science and Technology
- Understanding about science and technology
History and Nature of Science
- Nature of science
Science/Math Process Skills:
News and facts about the space missions that explore Essay About Space Science our solar system. Most deep-space missions carry cameras to acquire scientific data; but these data can
- Mature galaxies exist where the BB predicts only infant galaxies (like the 13.4Bly distant GN-z
- An entire universe-worth of missing antimatter contradicts most fundamental BB prediction
- Observations show that spiral galaxies are the missing millions of years of BB predicted collisions
- Clusters of galaxies exist at great distances where the BB predicts they should not exist
- A trillion stars are missing an unimaginably massive quantity of heavy elements, a total of nine billion years worth
- Galaxy superclusters exist yet the BB predicts that gravity couldn't form them even in the alleged age of the cosmos
- A missing generation of the alleged billions of first stars that the failed search has implied simply never existed
- Missing uniform distribution of earth's radioactivity
- Solar system formation theory wrong too
- It is "philosophy", not science, that makes the big-bang claim that the universe has no center
- Amassing evidence suggests the universe may have a center
- Sun is missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart
- The beloved supernova chemical evolution story for the formation of heavy elements is now widely rejected
- Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes
- Missing billions of years of additional clustering of nearby galaxies
- Surface brightness of the furthest galaxies, against a fundamental BB claim, is identical to that of the nearest galaxies
- Missing shadow of the big bang with the long-predicted "quieter" echo behind nearby galaxy clusters now disproved
- The CMB and other alleged confirmed big bang predictions (Google: big bang predictions. See that we're #1.)
- These "shouldn't exist" a supermassive black hole, a dusty galaxy but they do
- Fine tuning and dozens of other MAJOR scientific observations and 1,000+ scientists doubting the big bang.
* If the solar system actually were 4.55 billion years old (that third significant digit is added by evolutionists as a psychological device to convince the public of a fictitious precision), by now it should have reached a stasis. Instead, scientists observe a great number of short-lived occurrences (transient phenomena) including:
- Mercury: rapid
- Venus: recent and the apparent of rotation
- Earth: rapid ; ; ;
- Moon: cites unexpected heat, dust, molten outer core, volcanism, radon & helium emissions
- Mars: eruption of apparent water vapor and Phobos and Deimos
- Jupiter: moon and than tidal pumping can explain
- Saturn: and moon (hear with a JPL systems administrator)
- Asteroids: that outgass, that have six tails, the look like comets, etc., s.
- Feel free to send other examples to .
* Missing uniform distribution of solar system isotopes: To pile on, scientific observations also challenge the standard stellar nucleosynthesis story of the origins of our solar system's lighter elements, those between lithium and iron. For, if these were created inside of stars which later exploded, the big bang model expects a reasonably homogenous distribution of the created elements such that, the Sun and the Earth should consist of the same isotopes (versions) of elements like nitrogen and oxygen. However, the Sun has " nitrogen-15 (compared to nitrogen-14)" than does the Earth, which is contrary to standard planetary formation theory, which predicts the same percentage of isotopes in both bodies. Likewise, the Earth has 7 percent less oxygen-16 relative to its other isotopes, than does the Sun. NASA that "that Earth, the moon, as well as... meteorites... have a lower concentration of the O-16 than does the sun... The implication is that we did not form out of the same solar nebula materials..." (Any secondary assumptions that attempt to answer that problem, regardless of how improbable in and of themselves, of course, will fail to explain any isotope mismatches between the Moon and the Earth.)
* Sun is missing nearly 100% of the spin that natural formation would impart: The discoverer of gravity Isaac that gravity could condense a gas cloud into our sun and its orbiting planets. Big bang proponents reject Newton's insight. So they must develop a secondary assumption to explain why the Sun, which has about 99% of the mass of the solar system, has less than 1% of the "spin" of the system. Thus at least apparently, the claimed evolution of our solar system would violate the law of the conservation of angular momentum, requiring yet another "rescue device" to be devised to protect the theory.
The Concerned Household Electricity Consumers Council fully endorses the recommendations of these scientists because recent research has definitively validated that: once certain natural factor (i.e., solar, volcanic and oceanic/ENSO activity) impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no “natural factor adjusted” warming remaining to be attributed to rising atmospheric CO2 levels. That is, these natural factor impacts fully explain the trends in all relevant temperature data sets over the last 50 or more years. At this point, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have caused what have been officially reported as rising, or even record setting, global average surface temperatures (GAST)… Moreover, additional research findings demonstrate that adjustments by government agencies to the GAST record render that record totally inconsistent with published credible temperature data sets and useless for any policy purpose…