Congratulations on your honorary Order of Merit award.

Keep my predictions and my e-mail address. You will soon have need for them; I can tell you where to look and provide the calculations your may want when BB cosmology starts going south. An American expression for going awry. At that time many will be bewildered

your friend forrest

I’ll be looking forward to your e-mail requesting additional information.

I was referring to real, peer-reviewed science. Which keeps me too busy as it is.

My related 250 page copyrighted book of new theory is entitled, The Pan Theory, a General Unified Model of cosmology: unifying the forces of physics, classical mechanics, and quantum theory. — “Everything that you ever wanted to know, and maybe a few things that you didn’t. The most pondered questions of all times are answered in simple language and logic.” (English publication scheduled for the fall of 2010) Currently partially translated into 12 languages.

These are three of the 70+ listed and “observable”, copyrighted predictions which I thought may be most relevant to the observations above, and as I asserted, evidence for an older universe . Additional evidence for the Predictions below, along with extended text and related equations, is available to all upon request, see e-mail address below. (it’s too long to present here)

1. The age of the observable universe is much older than has been asserted using the Big Bang model(s). Continually higher red-shifted galaxies will be discovered until the Big Bang model will necessarily break down at about 35 Billion light years of age which is more than twice its present estimated age of 13.7 Billion years — probably much sooner as a result of the multiple inadequacies of the BB model – but probably not until viable alternative theory(s) becomes well-known. Many of these galaxies will have the same quantities of metal and chemistry within them as comparable middle-age galaxies would have that are relatively close to us including our own. This would be evidence that 13 Billion years or more in the past, middle aged galaxies existed which would be completely contrary to the BB model. (discussions and evidence, pages 43- 44B, 84-89)

3. Everything at a distance (distant galaxies) will be perceived as being larger, more luminescent, moving faster, accelerating more, being greater distances apart, and having wider spectrums than it really displayed in its own time (copyrighting by the Pan theory in 1983) —hence the asserted (but unreal) accelerated expansion of the universe. For example galactic winds, jets, particle currents, and motions at great distances will seem to be extraordinarily fast including superluminous, but instead would be just another condition of The Pan Theory of Relativity or related “measurement relativity.” The full implications of this condition of relativity are very numerous and many may not be discussed within this text (discussions and evidence, pages 38-41, 97-102; 105)

27. The age of the oldest stars within the observable universe, some possibly within our own galaxy, could be 60 billion years old or more, born from a previous galaxy, now expired. These K and M dwarf stars would be few and far between. Their defining characteristic is their small size and luminosity, but this also makes them hard to detect. To recognize the oldest of these stars we would look at the ratio of their chemical makeup. If they are calculated to be fussing hydrogen at a certain rate based upon their radiation, they should have no more than a calculated amount of helium in their body even if they were the first stars formed in the universe. If the amount of helium observed is found to be many times the predicted quantity it would be strong evidence that the star is much older than the presently calculated age of the universe. (discussions and evidence pages 32-35)(106-107)

forrest_forrest@netzero.net

your friend forrest

But this is a prediction that can be drawn from consistent observations, we just haven’t seen enough of these observations yet, but we will.
Stanton said:

That in itself is not a prediction that can be made on the current data, so it is worthless.

The Big Bang has no well-know future predictions except for one, that the universe is 13.7 Billion years old or younger.
Stanton said:

What is “future predictions”? Theories can make current predictions based on current data, some of which may not been tested yet. (And those prediction can concern past time, current time or future time, but I presume you aren’t discussing that.)

Some untested predictions is currently dark energy and constraints on inflation.

Nothing you say provoke an interest in alternative ideas. For example, I’m not sure why you expect cosmology to tell you about the local galaxy environment.

If you have a better theory or adverse data, by all means present it, but as long as you have not it is quite absurd to pollute science blogs with unfounded speculation.

You’re right at the present time. But this is a prediction that can be drawn from consistent observations, we just haven’t seen enough of these observations yet, but we will. The Big Bang has no well-know future predictions except for one, that the universe is 13.7 Billion years old or younger. Google search future predictions of the Big Bang. All you will ever find is observations that claim a prior prediction. Just try to find one and let me know, I haven’t. Every new observation is a surprise to BB theorists, like the one above. Doesn’t that say something in and of itself.

Wouldn’t a theory that has made many past and future predictions which are being continuously observed, and which is a much simpler explanation of observed reality, be better?

You will soon find out, I believe, that these age predictions that I have given are only conservative.

WMAP 5 data cannot account for the radiation of hydrogen in the Milky Way as explained by Verschuur and his radio astronomy observations.
No correlation is needed, only that WMAP 5 would observe such hydrogen which has never been denied to my knowledge.
http://www.dsri.dk/~mykal/tmp/tycho/Verschuur.doc

If you want more info/ predictions — I’ll send you them free for your consideration or critique. They are part of an entire book related to this subject that will be published first in English in the fall of 2010.
forrest_forrest@netzero.net

The implications here are that by the observations of the nine galaxies above as well as the URL that I posted, I believe, you are seeing the beginning of the end of the BB theory.

This is not a prediction that can be drawn from consistent observations. As I noted earlier BB theory (which isn’t predicted on such observations, btw) has weathered inconsistent observations which tells us it is a robust theory. And accordingly BB theory was recently verified, IIRC beyond reasonable doubt for the first time, by WMAP 5 year data.

Your age claims are obviously erroneous, check the science, so I fail to see why you make them.

The implications here are that by the observations of the nine galaxies above as well as the URL that I posted, I believe, you are seeing the beginning of the end of the BB theory. There will be countless similar future observations having continuously greater red-shifts, with astronomers asserting continuously denser galaxies and galaxy clusters. First they will claim they are seeing the dark ages, then they will see past it. All of these observations will be misinterpreted. Below you will find one of the Predictions of over 70, that you will be continuously seeing.

The age of the observable universe is much older than has been asserted using the Big Bang model(s). Continually higher red-shifted galaxies will be found until the Big Bang model will necessarily break down at about 35 Billion light years which is more than twice its present estimated age of 13.7 Billion years — probably much sooner as a result of multiple inadequacies of the BB model – but probably not completely until a viable alternative theory is available. Many of these galaxies will have the same quantities of metal within them as comparable middle-age galaxies would have that are relatively close to us including our own. This would be evidence that 13 Billion years or more in the past, middle aged galaxies existed which would be completely contrary to the BB model.

The Pan Theory perspective is that the observable universe is probably not expanding. Instead consider the observable Universe as constant in size but the matter within it as getting smaller. New matter would be continuously created from the lost material (dark matter) which would maintain a constant density. Each time frame of the observable universe would have the same matter saturation as any other observable time frame. This is what really differentiates the Pan Theory from an expansionist theory like the BB.

Sit back and watch these prediction come true or you can be sent upon your request, 70 current predictions of this theory. Many of these predictions are over 30 years old and are all under copyrights. The Title of the theory is the Pan Theory. The title of the technical papers, soon to be book form is The Pan Theory, a General Unified Model of cosmology, the forces of physics, classical mechanics, and quantum theory.

For additional info/ predictions or text gratis– forrest_forrest@netzero.net
Misinterpretations will last, let’s say eight more years, with many alternative BB theories being offered before the BB as well as several other major theories in physics today will go down in flames. You heard it first right here on the BA blog.

your friend forrest