"When bombarded with electrons from the second layer , the third layer of lead plasma expanded."

Is anyone reading this book also?
Nice, I feel lonely. Do not understand a word of it, you know.

"Lead as an element has some very peculiar properties. The radiative loss in lead is exponentially growing with the energy-loss of the electrons involved."

Should be:

"Lead as an element has some very peculiar properties. The radiative loss in lead is exponentially growing with the energy-increase of the electrons involved."

Pff, beer is really bad while reading and writing at the same time.

The textbook says about that:

When bombarded with electrons from the second layer of lead plasma, the third layer expanded.

Lead as an element has some very peculiar properties. The radiative loss in lead is exponentially growing with the energy-loss of the electrons involved.

The electrons coming from the second layer in the EBS carried energies in the TeV range, releasing enormous amounts of energy. Part of this energy went back to the second layer, powering the endothermic reactions needed for the r-processes (which need high entropy). The rest of the remaining energy heated up the lead enough to make it behave like a plasma, fighting the pressure from gravity to slowly expand to a relatively thick (but not too dense) layer. It made it easier for the remaining electrons to pass.
When hitting the layer above, mainly consisting of iron, it created a magnetic field while travelling further to the surface. The TeV electrons where in the maintime reduced to the MeV range, but easily went past the remaining layers. They now landed in a tremendously powerfull magnetic field.
The synchroton radiation came into birth when the electrons followed the field-lines around the EBS, coiling around them.

Sadly the EBS did not have a long lifespan, as it will be consumed by it's ever hungry neighbour.

But some were lucky, being not a part of a binary system. They made it, passing higher elements to future stars.

Don Alexander Says:
October 24th, 2008 at 10:54 am
@Hannes: Do you have the first idea how GRBs are even produced?

There is also an explanation for the accelerated expansion of the universe and for dark matter and dark energy involved.

..When the decaying neutronium core of the the first EBS fell apart, it produced a stream of extremely heated and accelerated electrons.
The baryonic protons on the other hand were not as efficient in energy transfer causing differences in chaotic behaviour. And the sum of a group of electrons carrying energy, called plasma, is greater than the parts.
More than half of the Poynting flux of these electrons have been converted into kinetic energy flux, and the terminal Lorentz factor approached the maximum possible value (?? ? ?).
Early studies concerning the efficiency of electrons accreting gave a too low value concerning power-efficiency rating of electrons like in this early study: http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409421

There were more electrons moving in different vectors than protons, most which went straight to the event horizon.
The accretion rate of electrons was therefore higher than expected, causing a discrepancy in electrical charge on the outside of the primordial black hole.
The BH got a positive charge (which doesn't matter actually), where the jets did accrete a surplus of super-accelerated electrons.
These accreting electrons with a restmass of more than 207 times greater than the electron (105.6 MeV) are still showing up in our earth's atmosphere today. They are called muons (and tau) leptons. Although decaying very rapidly in our atmosphere they have quite a lonely travel history.
As even the anti-matter EBS' produced mainly electrons, the BH's produced jets which cancelled out early anti-matter baryons. This did not have an great effect on the universe as a whole, but after some 5 billion years there was no anti-matter left.

After that moment the universe expanded exponentially.
The negative charge of the leptons caused an accellerated expansion.

loose and not to lose is the question

Should have been:

…The companion star will not form a BH, but will lose all of it's outer layers containing the last remnants of low-mass FUSIONABLE elements, like hydrogen, helium or carbon.

But the second layer of the EBS contains only FISSIONABLE elements, such as Uranium etc.

Referring to your post above, that should be fusion, not "fission" — fission is the splitting of atoms.

As for Anaconda, looks like he has buggered off this thread as well as the next thread.

b.t.w. I should have said earlier, to be really precise, that the heavy metal IONS from the desintegrating Eerie Blue Star's did not accrete.

I just wanted to say to Anaconda – you don't need any plasma to have an extremely interesting universe.

Due to the magnetic field created by their own motion, the accreting electrons went to the positive pole of the primordial BH. The heavier metals did not accrete, but went straight to the event horizon (they also decayed, but too late for accretion).
It created a momentum for the BH's. Therefore it speeded up the creation of the first SMBH's due to merges.
The other remaining left-over pBH's flew away taking with them (in time) some of the debris from the first SN's, creating smaller galaxy's of their own. These galaxy's where extremely dense because -due to their speed- the BH's could not grasp matter too far away from the event horizon.
So just matter close enough to the BH was grabbed, remember the mass was still intermediate of these first pBH. They already gathered speed.
That's why the universe had an early expansion.

As usual PRPP papers are kindly requested to be sure I really understand aspects of this 'theory'. I would be mightily anxious to see a complete EU refutation of the findings of the four asteroids rnentioned above. If you personally have 'evidence' in this regard, why not share this knowledge globally. Or is it "you can't handle the truth" dogma ?

…We know that the first population III stars did not have a long lifespan, because of their high mass.
If we assume they all formed roughly at the same time – they will have died also almost at the same time.
We also know that the first star systems must have been binary's.
When a Pop III star, which is way above Chandrasekhar's limit, explodes it will form a Black Hole of intermediate mass .
The companion star will not form a BH, but will lose all of it's outer layers containing the last remnants of low-mass fissionable elements.
What is left is a star with no fuel for fission, almost solely consisting of metals. But it does have a layered structure.
The core is presumed to be made of pure Neutronium. The second layer is filled with extremely heavy elements, which all have a mass greater then lead (Pb).
The third layer is a thick layer of lead. Then you have a fourth layer of mainly iron.
The surface of the star is a mixture of low-mass metals.

The nuclear fission capable elements in the second layer are forming the greatest nuclear plants in the history of the universe. They make the colour of this star an eery blue, due to synchrotron radiation. They were given the funny name "Eery Blue Stars" (EBS's) because they have such a blue colour in the visible spectrum, although they are very faint.

After millions of years the BH will digest the EBS, resulting in a GRB.
The gigantic release of gamma radiation will cause tremendous X-rays in the rapid expanding cloud of matter previously released during the supernova event.

The Neutronium core of the EBR is split into it's parts. Regardless of the matter vs anti-matter composition of the early universe they will decay into electrons and protons, the reason for this Handedness of the Universe is still under debate.
It explains the process called baryogenesis and the baryon asymmetry.

The electrons also are easily accreted (due to their speed) in the primordial BH. The result is an accretion flow consisting of mainly electrons from the poles of the BH.
The stream of electrons is also producing a magnetic field, although a BH cannot have a charge itself, but the surrounding can.
The BH will contain a positive charge, but that doesn't matter due to it's nature, BH's don't care about charge.

The early accretion jets gives the universe a negative charge – cancelling out anti-matter.

As a result of the numerous explosions we see GRB's and Quasars in the early universe.

… this is a smalll excerpt from a future astronomy textbook

Just again the usual mumbo-jumbo electroclaptrap – and you know it.

Liars and fraudsters are so easy to pick up. They squeal out loud when the think they the know something, then run away when their flaws are completely exposed. Then they have the audacity to pretend it wasn't true and continue on with the diatribe and claptrap again, and again and again.

Really in the end you know absolutely nothing.

Game's up jackass!!

SOM

"In the long run, the science that succeeds is the science that works, regardless of other beliefs of original discoverer. The best demonstration of that is the fact that science makes technologies that work independent of the belief system of the user…"

Agreed.

However, Science doesn't have any "technologies" based on the so-called "big bang" hypothesis to verify whether it "works" or not.

If we start with the assumption that in situ measurements of the universe outside a region approx a light-year in radius centred on the Sun will not be obtained within the lifetime of any adult or teenager today, nor regions such as between the Sun's core and a few hundred km of the top of the photosphere (OK, maybe a few thousand), nor the interiors of the planets, nor … in what sense can astronomy (etc) be called a science?

If we can discuss this – calmly – and reach some mutually agreed conclusions, we may then be able to move on to the question of the extent to which personal belief systems relate to that science (or not, as the case might be).

Fair enough?

There once was a Lady named 'Bright',
whose speed was much faster than light!

She went out one day, in a relative way,
and came back on the previous night!

GOD, in this case, may then be refered to as a 'cosmic consciousness' functioning beyond the restraints of those traditionally applied observations. THEREFORE, our arguments FROM this frame of reference are inconclusive, even faulty.

Multiverse unification theory anyone?

Simple spelling mistakes like these don't help your credibility Anaconda, especially when you a) don't fix (or even acknowledge) them, and b) when they are key to doing what you advise (namely, follow the scientific evidence; not a problem wrt Eric Lerner, but it sure was wrt Bostick, wasn't it?)

It is true that, in 1992, Eric Lerner reviewed the field, and he wrote a book about his findings.

We do not need to question Lerner's statement about what he concluded … however, an examination of scientific evidence surely rests on more than taking Lerner at his word, in a document that was not peer-reviewed, doesn't it? After all, to do so would be to behave in a manner that Anaconda has been vehemently decrying for months now (what was the phrase? "drinking KoolAid"?)

Let's examine some scientific evidence, shall we?

Let's start with "Five-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Interpretation" (link is to the ArXiV preprint abstract; in my next comment I'll provide a link to the relevant WMAP site where the full set of papers, as published, may be downloaded, along with all the relevant data):
http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.0547

Shall we discuss this objective, scientific evidence Anaconda?

Agreed.

However, Science doesn't have any "technologies" based on the so-called "big bang" hypothesis to verify whether it "works" or not.

What we do have is the history and that history suggests that Lemaitre didn't propose his hypothesis ("big bang") based on observation & measurement, but, rather, on his intuition and his desire to reconcile his faith and his science.

Again, notice most of the reponses are in the form of empty ridicule because really it is about "modern" astronomy's faith and dogma:

"The dominant theory of cosmology, the Big Bang, is contradicted by observation, and has been for some time. The theory's predictions of light element abundance, large-scale structure, the age of the universe and the cosmic background radiation(CBR) are in clear contradiction with massive observational evidence, using almost any standard criteria for scientific validity. This situation is not new. In 1992, I reviewed these contradictions, and concluded that theory had already been clearly falsified. Since that time, the evidence against the Big Bang has only strengthened." — Erik Lerner

http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p27.htm

So, the Universe started off as a "singularity" or something, what, smaller than an atom? Or, what, we don't know.

Really, its just counting "angels on a pinhead".