Before I discuss this new chapter, let me talk about a general review of the science of astronomy and cosmology. It has a lot of weaknesses and horrible faults, but not horrible if we recognize those weaknesses and faults. One thing that present day and current day astronomers and physicists do that does not help the science is that they make no attempt in recognizing these faults and thus tempering their conclusions. Their major weakness is one of "ten assumptions goes into each of their single conclusions", and that is not a healthy science program. Not healthy because if one of those assumptions is false, then the conclusion is false.
One of the largest and gravest errors is having the redshift be Doppler redshift and assuming it is an acceleration and assuming it is a expansion, and assuming the further away means older age. A chain of horrible assumptions that astronomers routinely accept full heartedly.
Ask yourself as to how much of present day astronomy and cosmology is based on the Doppler redshift? Horribly much is the correct answer. What if we removed the Doppler redshift altogether out of astronomy, and what conclusions would survive a removal of the Doppler redshift? Well, the age of the Cosmos, galaxies would not survive a Doppler redshift removal because that is the only age reckoning in place at this time.
Astronomers, and scientists in general should have realized and recognized that if a science is heavily dependent on one tool-- Doppler redshift, that it is likely to be a false tool and cause tremendous upheaval in that science when it is thrown out. And that is where we are in 2013, ready to throw out Doppler redshift, because the redshift has nothing to do with a Big Bang or motion away from an observer. The redshift is Refraction-redshift due to light passing near or by a massive object, since the object has a gravity EM-cell surrounding the object and light that is passing by is refraction redshifted.
So, the ages of galaxies and the Cosmos cannot use the redshift to measure age.
We have to go back to a time in which we measured age by other means than a redshift.
I am trying to think of a good age measuring tool, now that the redshift is thrown out.
But I think the best place to start is with the Solar System rather than with beyond the solar system of galaxies and stars in other galaxies. In the Atom Totality theory, we should find that the Solar System has layered ages of planets and the Sun, so that the Sun and the inner planets are likely to be about 10 billion years old whereas the outer gas giant planets are only 5 billion years old. So do we have any means of measuring that?
Long before our solar system formed and even before the Milky Way assumed its final spiral shape, a star slightly smaller than the Sun blazed into life in our galaxy, formed from the newly scattered remains of the first stars in the universe. ?Employing techniques similar to those used to date archeological remains here on Earth, scientists have learned that a metal-poor star?in our Milky Way called HE 1523 is 13.2 billion years old-just slightly younger than 13.7 billion year ?age of the universe. Our solar system is estimated to be only about 4.6 billion years old. The findings are detailed in the May 10 issue of Astrophysical Journal.
I am excited by this discovery but will be even more excited because the Atom Totality theory predicts stars in our Milky Way Galaxy that are older than the alleged age of the Cosmos 13.7 billion years. ?In the Atom Totality theory ages of stars and galaxies are layered. ?Some ages are from the Plutonium Atom Era, some from the previous ?Uranium Atom Era, some from the prior Thorium Atom Era. So that the ?age of 13.7 billion years was merely the Plutonium Atom extension onto a prior older cosmos of the Uranium Atom Totality. ?So what does this mean for the oldest stars in our galaxy? It means ?that in the future, there will be found a star that is 15 billion ?years old, and in the future a star that clocks up an age of 19 to 20 ?billion years will be found. Such discoveries will bring crisis to the ?Big Bang believers and they will be robustly adamant that the ?researchers made mistakes. But they did not make mistakes. The trouble ?is that the Big Bang theory is a fake. ?And closer to home, according to the Atom Totality theory, our own ?Solar System displays this same layering of ages in that the Sun and ?inner planets date back to the prior Uranium Atom Totality and can be ?as old as ?20 billion years, whereas the outer planets of Jupiter and beyond are ?of the recent Plutonium Atom Era and are only 4-5 billion years old. ?So when experimentalists can accurately date the Sun and inner planets ?compared ?to the outer planets, be not surprized when the data says that the Sun ?and Earth are closer to 10 billion years old and Jupiter and Saturn ?are only 5 billion years old. But can I claim this layering truth now ?from the given 13.2 billion ?years? Can I claim victory for the Atom Totality theory, right here, ?and right now? I think so. Because in the Big Bang theory requires ?billions of years for the ?explosion to have coalesced the material to form a star and not just a ?mere 0.5 billion years. In other words, our present understanding of ?solar dynamics does not allow for a star forming in 0.5 billion years ?immediately after the Big Bang explosion. That picture conjures up the image that the explosion had pre-made stars. So I think I can count victory right ?here and right now. And the icing on the cake will be when researchers ?report a star that is 20 billion years old in our galaxy.
More than 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google newsgroups author search archive from May 2012 to May 2013. Drexel University's Math Forum has done a far better job and many of those missing Google posts can be seen here: