"fitz" <zeusrdx@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a640a776-22f8-4047-b936-4ca5168b96a1@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> "a new cosmology"
>
> Fitzpatrick offers us a new cosmology that solves a lot of problems:
>
> We know something epochal happened 10 to 15 billion years ago because
> of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).
>
> (click link):
>
> http://www.amperefitz.com/fitzcos.htm
>
> Science!
>
>
New cosmoslogy?
Utter bollocks!
"Therefore the first main problem with the present Big Bang concept is what NASA has shown you in the above statement.
Neutrons decay too fast (10 - 15 minutes) for a Big Bang to have created atoms from pure energy. Gamow got this argument from many other nuclear scientists too, at the time he proposed his Big Bang scenario that our universities, nevertheless, somehow accepted and have been printing many thousands of articles and telling us all about for more than sixty years now.
So we know one thing for certain: For this Big Bang to have happened, the neutron - way back then - had to have a decay rate of much, much longer than 15 minutes."
1. 10 - 15 minutes was plenty of time for the very limited nuclear synthesis that occurred after the big bang. In fact only very small amount of light elements other than hydrogen were formed in a "few minutes" (estimated at 17 - residual neutrons would indeed have decayed to a proton and an electron so no surprise that the early universe was roughly three quarters hydrogen1).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis
in particular virtually all dueterium and helium3 in the universe was formed in that short epoch - however there isn't much of either.
2. Larger nucleons are formed as a result of nulcear fusion in stars and those heavier than iron in supernovae.
Do try a bit of basic background reading before coming up with such rubbish.
"a new cosmology" 
Linear Mode
