It is worth a note to realise that when the cherished assumptions of the bb are challenged no substantive reply is forthcoming. With regard to the size of the superclusters, none can be forthcoming because the size of these structures clearly contradict the basic assumptions of the bb. R. Brent Tully mapped ribbons of superclusters
300 million light years long, 100 million light years thick, stretching for approx a billion light years. These observed structures would require 80 billion years to form.
Margaret Geller and John Huchra produced a map revealing the The Great Wall, a structure 200 million light years across and 700 million light years long. A team of American, British and Hungarian astronomers found larger structures, stretching across 7 billion light years. This huge shell and void patten would require 150 billion light years to form.
The only way these gigantic structurees can be reconciled with bb is if there was an initial expansion, then a pause of many billion years, and then a resumed expansion. Clearly, what the evidence of these structures infers is that there was no bb. If Yaniru is unsure how to do the maths, that's not my problem. A basic outline can be picked up from Eric Lerner in his book The Big Bang Never Happened.
Yaniru in his post states that it is well known in cosmology that the clash of matter and anti matter left enough matter for the universe to form. Unfortunately, this is not the case. While it is true to say that the bb predicts the creation of equal amounts of matter and anti matter, our universe is entirely surprising in that case. Despite the fact that anti hydrogen has now been produced in laboratories, no mechanism has been detected whereby annihilation could mean annihilation but not quite. Stating that it is well known that enough matter was left over to form the universe is akin to saying: Well, it must have been because we are here! This is a subjective idealist approach in the extreme.
Large scale structure is evidence of an infinite universe, not of a bb which occured 150 billion years ago. While attempting to explain the existance of iron, recently discovered at 13.5 billion light years, Yaniru in a previous post attempted to say the universe could be 30 billion years old. Unfortunately, this perspective doesn't cut any ice because it falls back on the strange two stage expansion idea, which nobody is really espousing.
I don't really see Yaniru's next point at all. Everybody knows that by clicking on a posters name in the discussion forum, their details are obtained, for example their proper name, and how many posts they have made in various discussion forums. Yaniru continues: Here is another stupid point by Paul Morgan. Perhaps he didn't want to say: Here is another stupid point by littlefish, which might sound stupid in itself. But this is only an astronomy discussion forum, not a 9/11 whodunit forum, so it's not surprising people reveal their name. Why the melodrama? Is it because Yaniru kept on posting under differant names in the god and astronomy section? I remember posting there and it was very confusing because I never knew which Yaniru to respond to, as if one of them wasn't bad enough.
Our cosmic Inspector Clousseau seems very energised at this point. Because he then goes on to denounce the idea that if the observed expansion were merely a local expansion, we wouldn't know because our telescopes aren't powerful enough. Yaniru's objection to this point is fighting against common sense. There is absolutely no scientific data which suggests that galaxies don't exist beyond the limit of our observations. In fact what galaxies we can detect seem very well defined, with well defined spiral arms, for example, not the anticipated "smudges" predicted by bb.
As far as me not understanding dark energy is concerned I have a problem. How can I understand anything nobody else understands? I suggest it is another mystery, something like the holy trinity or faith itself. Because in bb religion and science are completely intertwined, unfortunately,
as the theory gives justification for creationism.
The bb has provided cover for the backward, unscientific religious community who see in the theory a scientific justification for their beliefs. The pope has proclaimed that his divine doctrine of fiat lux may be compatible with the bb and so science is hamstrung with a dependance on the deductionist method, instead of enlightened by the observational method Science should be based on observation which without too much endeavour reveals an infinite universe. I notice that the fanatic God people are posting in this forum as well. God nade the earth in six days, they tell us. And then he had a rest. What a joke! Heaven help us all.