beecee

The point is my worn out arguments which you say you have on ignore anyway, are all the same arguments put by others here. You are really sounding quite "precious" in your continued complaints re my person, particularly when those complaints simply point out that you are wrong and are essentially the same arguments that you are wrong, that others are pointing out. some points you need to consider.... [1] Your article and paper in the OP is based on speculation. [2] It does not in the slightest invalidate the BB. [3] Anti matter voids do not exist for obvious reasons. [4] Anti gravity is not a consequence of anti matter. [5] The voids that you are preoccupied with are simply areas of less density [6] The "pushing" you describe is really the gravitational attraction of matter towards more dense regions of matter and away from the less dense regions. [7] The web formations are a result of gravity. [8] The universe [space] is dynamic and has been known since Hubble. That's the state of the nation and is in line with physical law, knowledge, and observational data. Really, you need to consider the irrationality in continuing your line of argument in this thread. The universe is dynamic, so its not surprising that voids [space] are also possibly dynamic. The dynamic nature as you have continually been informed, depends on the density of the region. The universe has been known to be dynamic since Hubble.

The universe is dynamic, so its not surprising that voids [space] are also possibly dynamic. The dynamic nature as you have continually been informed, depends on the density of the region. Did you read your own article? It says nothing about anti matter for one thing, says nothing about any invalidation of the BB, mentions numerous times and infers gravity is responsible for the web like structure of the galaxies etc. Also the voids present, are simply areas where space is less dense, and as such the DE component of space would be more apparent then areas between the voids and where the webs are. Also any group of galaxies near the edge of a void, would appear to be accelerating away from the void towards denser regions of space. As I mentioned previously, regions such as our local group and even beyond, are completely decoupled from the expansion. I would also suggest that you check out the Q+A in your link, re similar questions and answers that have already been given to you here. In essence as myself, Strange and Q-reeus have said, this [your OP] is entirely hypothetical and lacks any observational evidence, and is against many laws of physics that we know to exist. The BB is overwhelmingly supported by the available evidence. It is a scientific theory and model that gives us a reasonable insight to how we evolved from t+10-43 seconds right up to the present time.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-inosine-potential-route-rna-life.html Inosine could be a potential route to the first RNA and the origin of life on Earth December 3, 2018, Harvard University: Somewhere in the hostile environment of early Earth, life was born. Credit: Harvard University Our prehistoric Earth, bombarded with asteroids and lightening, rife with bubbling geothermal pools, may not seem hospitable today. But somewhere in the chemical chaos of our early planet, life did form. How? For decades, scientists have attempted to create miniature replicas of infant Earth in the lab. There, they hunt for the primordial ingredients that created the essential building blocks for life. It's attractive to chase our origin story. But this pursuit can bring more than just thrill. Knowledge of how Earth built its first cells could inform our search for extraterrestrial life. If we identify the ingredients and environment required to spark spontaneous life, we could search for similar conditions on planets across our universe. Today, much of the origin-of-life research focuses on one specific building block: RNA. While some scientists believe that life formed from simpler molecules and only later evolved RNA, others look for evidence to prove (or disprove) that RNA formed first. A complex but versatile molecule, RNA stores and transmits genetic information and helps synthesize proteins, making it a capable candidate for the backbone of the first cells. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-inosine-potential-route-rna-life.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/11/26/1814367115 Abstract The emergence of primordial RNA-based life would have required the abiotic synthesis of nucleotides, and their participation in nonenzymatic RNA replication. Although considerable progress has been made toward potentially prebiotic syntheses of the pyrimidine nucleotides (C and U) and their 2-thio variants, efficient routes to the canonical purine nucleotides (A and G) remain elusive. Reported syntheses are low yielding and generate a large number of undesired side products. Recently, a potentially prebiotic pathway to 8-oxo-adenosine and 8-oxo-inosine has been demonstrated, raising the question of the suitability of the 8-oxo-purines as substrates for prebiotic RNA replication. Here we show that the 8-oxo-purine nucleotides are poor substrates for nonenzymatic RNA primer extension, both as activated monomers and when present in the template strand; their presence at the end of a primer also strongly reduces the rate and fidelity of primer extension. To provide a proper comparison with 8-oxo-inosine, we also examined primer extension reactions with inosine, and found that inosine exhibits surprisingly rapid and accurate nonenzymatic RNA copying. We propose that inosine, which can be derived from adenosine by deamination, could have acted as a surrogate for G in the earliest stages of the emergence of life.

Yes really...And I didn't say it was your excellent itemized list that was common knowledge. the common knowledge is that anti matter and matter react similarly. Your itemized list was not really necessary in light of the other errors of judgment and claims in the OP and the thread in general. But yes, an excellent summary. thanks for that.

Pretty common knowledge I suggest...and I did make the comment and I'm sure Strange also inferred, that if all the matter we saw was anti matter, then we would be calling that anti matter, matter, and matter, anti matter....if you get my drift. In other words no noticable difference from normal matter, including obviously any inferences of anti gravity. Good! Exactly as most of us have been telling coffeesipin. Did you read your own article? It says nothing about anti matter for one thing, says nothing about any invalidation of the BB, mentions numerous times and infers gravity is responsible for the web like structure of the galaxies etc. Also the voids present, are simply areas where space is less dense, and as such the DE component of space would be more apparent then areas between the voids and where the webs are. Also any group of galaxies near the edge of a void, would appear to be accelerating away from the void towards denser regions of space. As I mentioned previously, regions such as our local group and even beyond, are completely decoupled from the expansion. I would also suggest that you check out the Q+A in your link, re similar questions and answers that have already been given to you here. In essence as myself, Strange and Q-reeus have said, this [your OP] is entirely hypothetical and lacks any observational evidence, and is against many laws of physics that we know to exist. The BB is overwhelmingly supported by the available evidence. It is a scientific theory and model that gives us a reasonable insight to how we evolved from t+10-43 seconds right up to the present time.

No one fears the brain falling out...Those that are simply so wide open minded, are unaware of such disasters and ridicule. In summing, your article is sheer hypothetical in near all respects. Professor Hawking is also having a paper published [if it hasn't been already published] based on a hypothetical and speculative scenario. Like I said, nothing wrong with that, except those that accept it valid at this time. Anti matter simply does not exist in the quantities that are envisaged in your article, and as Strange said, gravity explains all that anyway....the web like structure, the voids etc etc etc.... ps: Better correct an over-sight before I get picked up on it [nudge nudge, wink, wink] Professor Hawking is also having a paper published, should be of course, "Professor Hawking is also having a paper published posthumously" In fact more then one.

I once heard an old adage that went like this....It's great to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out

Yet all that hypothetical mishmash can be easily explained and observed through gravity.

Great work!!!

A mathematical solution/idea that is allowed for in GR but like a wormhole, still at this time speculative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_timelike_curve

All hypothetical at this time. The expansion of the universe is associated with the BB...The acceleration in that expansion at this time is caused by some "force"attributed to space itself, and which we call DE...this DE as I already mentioned, could be loosely called anti gravity because it acts against gravity in its act of pulling galaxies over smaller scales together. Speculation is great, and its good that you finally recognise it as speculation, because we actually have an explanation already, that shows gravity over smaller scales, over rides the large scale expansion observations. I fail to understand what you are saying. What's wrong with the far simpler explanation of spacetime evolution, with matter being formed after phase transitions and false vacuums resulting fro Superforce decoupling, which afterall is evident to many degrees in particle accelerators around the world. I don't see any "solid science" at all in fact. Nothing you have shown or said can invalidate what we observe that indicates the BB as currently known for the evolution of the universe. Both the BB and Einstein's GR are on solid ground at this time, and both compliment each other. The hypothetical article and paper are still just that....hypothetical. Yep, While small indications of anti matter are sometimes indicated in cosmic rays, the likelyhood of any large scale existence of anti matter is remote at best I would suggest for obvious reasons.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-vacuum.html The vacuum fluctuations of light (yellow wave) are amplified in an optical cavity (upper and lower reflecting mirrors). Crystal lattice vibrations (red atoms) at a two-dimensional interface surf this strong light wave. The thus mixed light-vibrational waves couple particularly strongly to electrons in a two-dimensional atomically thin material (green and yellow atoms), changing its properties. Credit: J. M. Harms, MPSD Scientists from the Theory Department of the Max Planck Institute for the Structure and Dynamics of Matter (MPSD) at the Center for Free-Electron Laser Science (CFEL) in Hamburg, Germany have shown through theoretical calculations and computer simulations that the force between electrons and lattice distortions in an atomically thin two-dimensional superconductor can be controlled with virtual photons. This could aid the development of new superconductors for energy-saving devices and many other technical applications. The vacuum is not empty. It may sound like magic to laypeople but the problem has preoccupied physicists since the birth of quantum mechanics. The apparent void bubbles incessantly and produces fluctuations of light even at absolute zero temperature. In a sense, these virtual photons are just waiting to be used. They can carry forces and change the properties of matter.Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-vacuum.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/11/eaau6969 Cavity quantum-electrodynamical polaritonically enhanced electron-phonon coupling and its influence on superconductivity: Abstract So far, laser control of solids has been mainly discussed in the context of strong classical nonlinear light-matter coupling in a pump-probe framework. Here, we propose a quantum-electrodynamical setting to address the coupling of a low-dimensional quantum material to quantized electromagnetic fields in quantum cavities. Using a protoypical model system describing FeSe/SrTiO3 with electron-phonon long-range forward scattering, we study how the formation of phonon polaritons at the two-dimensional interface of the material modifies effective couplings and superconducting properties in a Migdal-Eliashberg simulation. We find that through highly polarizable dipolar phonons, large cavity-enhanced electron-phonon couplings are possible, but superconductivity is not enhanced for the forward-scattering pairing mechanism due to the interplay between coupling enhancement and mode softening. Our results demonstrate that quantum cavities enable the engineering of fundamental couplings in solids, paving the way for unprecedented control of material properties.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-saturn-satellites-earth-moon-phoebe.html The water in Saturn's rings and satellites is like that on Earth except for moon Phoebe, which is out of this world December 3, 2018, Planetary Science Institute Above image lower left: Cassini VIMS infrared view of Saturn. Blue is infrared light where water ice reflects relatively brightly. Red is longer wavelength thermal emission showing heat from deep inside the planet. Green is infrared wavelengths where aurora emit light. Above image upper right: Phoebe in visible light. Phoebe is very dark, like charcoal whereas the rings are very bright in visible light like slightly dirty snow. Phoebe is not to scale relative to Saturn. Credit: NASA, JPL, VIMS Team, ISS Team, U. Arizona, D. Machacek, U. Leicester By developing a new method for measuring isotopic ratios of water and carbon dioxide remotely, scientists have found that the water in Saturn's rings and satellites is unexpectedly like water on the Earth, except on Saturn's moon Phoebe, where the water is more unusual than on any other object so far studied in the Solar System. The results, found in the Icarus paper "Isotopic Ratios of Saturn's Rings and Satellites: Implications for the Origin of Water and Phoebe" by Planetary Science Institute Senior Scientist Roger N. Clark, also mean we need to change models of the formation of the Solar System because the new results are in conflict with existing models. Robert H. Brown (U. Arizona), Dale P. Cruikshank (NASA), and Gregg A. Swayze (USGS) are co-authors. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-saturn-satellites-earth-moon-phoebe.html#jCpthe paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0019103518303580?via%3Dihub Isotopic Ratios of Saturn's Rings and Satellites: Implications for the Origin of Water and Phoebe: Abstract Isotopic ratios have long been used to learn about physical processes acting over a wide range of geological environments, and in constraining the origin and/or evolution of planetary bodies. We report the spectroscopic detection of deuterium in Saturn's rings and satellites, and use these measurements to determine the (D/H) ratios in their near-surface regions. Saturn's moons, Phoebe and Iapetus, show a strong signature of CO2 and the 13C component of this molecule is detected and quantified. Large averages of spectra obtained by the Cassini Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer, VIMS, were computed for the rings and icy satellites. The observed intensities of the infrared absorptions in H2O and CO2and their isotopes were calibrated using laboratory data and radiative transfer models to derive the D/H and 13C/12C ratios. We find that the D/H in Saturn's rings and satellites is close to the Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW) and bulk Earth (4% lower than VSMOW) value except for Phoebe, which is 8.3 times the VSMOW value. This is the highest value for any Solar-System surface yet measured, and suggests that Phoebe formed from material with a different D/H ratio than the other satellites in the Saturn system. Phoebe's 13C/12C ratio is also unusual: 4.7 times greater than terrestrial, and greater than values measured for the interstellar medium and the galactic center. The high 13C abundance in the CO2 suggests that Phoebe was never warm enough for the large D/H ratio in its surface to have originated by evaporative fractionation of its water ice (e.g., from heating in the inner Solar System before its eventual capture by Saturn). We also report the detection of a probable O-D stretch absorption due to OD in minerals on Phoebe at 3.62 μm. This absorption is not detected on other Saturnian satellites. Stronger signatures of bound water absorptions are found in the dark material of Iapetus and we report a new detection of bound water at 1.9 μm. The position of this absorption matches that seen in spectra of hydrated iron oxides but does not match absorptions seen in spectra of tholins. Despite the strong bound water signature in the Iapetus dark material, no 3.62-μm OD absorption is seen in the spectra, further indicating the high deuterium level on Phoebe is unusual. As such, it is likely that Phoebe originated in a colder part of the outer Solar System, relative to the prevailing temperatures at Saturn's distance from the Sun.

https://phys.org/news/2018-12-scientists-biggest-black-hole-collision.html Scientists detect biggest known black-hole collision December 3, 2018, Australian National University An international team of scientists have detected ripples in space and time, known as gravitational waves, from the biggest known black-hole collision that formed a new black hole about 80 times larger than the Sun – and from another three black-hole mergers. The Australian National University (ANU) is playing a lead role in Australia's involvement with the gravitational wave discovery through a partnership in the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave Observatory (LIGO), which is based in the United States. Professor Susan Scott, who is Leader of the General Relativity Theory and Data Analysis Group at ANU, said the team discovered the four collisions by re-analysing data from Advanced LIGO's first two observing runs. extract: The international research team has detected gravitational waves from 10 different black-hole mergers and one neutron star collision during the past three years. Neutron stars are the densest stars in the Universe, with a diameter of up to about 20 kilometres. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-12-scientists-biggest-black-hole-collision.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.12907.pdf GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs: We present the results from three gravitational-wave searches for coalescing compact binaries with component masses above 1M during the first and second observing runs of the Advanced gravitational-wave detector network. During the first observing run (O1), from September 12th, 2015 to January 19th, 2016, gravitational waves from three binary black hole mergers were detected. The second observing run (O2), which ran from November 30th, 2016 to August 25th, 2017, saw the first detection of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral, in addition to the observation of gravitational waves from a total of seven binary black hole mergers, four of which we report here for the first time: GW170729, GW170809, GW170818 and GW170823. For all significant gravitational-wave events, we provide estimates of the source properties. The detected binary black holes have total masses between 18.6 +3.1 −0.7M and 85.1 +15.6 −10.9M, and range in distance between 320+120 −110 Mpc and 2750+1350 −1320 Mpc. No neutron star – black hole mergers were detected. In addition to highly significant gravitational-wave events, we also provide a list of marginal event candidates with an estimated false alarm rate less than 1 per 30 days. From these results over the first two observing runs, which include approximately one gravitational-wave detection per 15 days of data searched, we infer merger rates at the 90% confidence intervals of 110−3840 Gpc−3 y −1 for binary neutron stars and 9.7−101 Gpc−3 y −1 for binary black holes, and determine a neutron star – black hole merger rate 90% upper limit of 610 Gpc−3 y −1 . VIII. CONCLUSIONS We have reported the results from GW searches for compact mergers during the first and second observing runs by the Advanced GW detector network. Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo have confidently detected gravitational waves from ten stellar-mass binary black hole mergers and one binary neutron star inspiral. The signals were discovered using three independent analyses: two matched-filter searches [8, 9] and one weakly modeled burst search [11]. We have reported four previously unpublished BBH signals discovered during O2, as well as updated FARs and parameter estimates for all previously reported GW detections. The reanalysis of O1 data did not reveal any new GW events, but improvements to the various detection pipelines have resulted in an increase of the significance of GW151012. Including these four new BBH mergers, the observed BBHs span a wide range of component masses, from 7.7 +2.2 −2.6 M to 50.6 +16.6 −10.2 M. One of the new events, GW170729, is found to be the highestmass BBH observed to date, with GW170608 still being the lightest BBH [16]. Similar to previous results, we find that the spins of the individual black holes are only weakly constrained, though for GW151226 and also for GW170729 we find that χeff is positive and thus can rule out two non-spinning black holes as their constituents at greater than the 90% credible level. The binary mergers observed during O1 and O2 range in distance between 40+10 −10 Mpc for the binary neutron star inspiral GW170817 to 2750+1350 −1320 Mpc for GW170729, making it not only the heaviest BBH but also the most distant one observed to date. For the BNS merger, GW170817, we have presented conservative upper limits on the properties of the remnant. The three other new events GW170809, GW170818, and GW170823 are all identified as heavy stellarmass BBH mergers, ranging in total mass from 59.2 +5.4 −3.9M to 68.9 +9.9 −7.1M. GW170818 is the second triple-coincident LIGO-Virgo GW event and is localized to an area of 39 deg2 , making it the best localised BBH to date. A similar impact of Virgo on the sky localization was already seen for GW170814 [15], reaffirming the importance of a global GW detector network for accurately localizing GW sources [188]. We have also presented a set of 14 marginal candidate events identified by the two matched-filter searches. The number of observed marginal events is consistent with our expectation given the chosen FAR threshold, but it is not possible to say whether or not a particular marginal trigger is a real GW signal. The properties of the observations reported in this catalog are based on general relativistic waveform models. Tests of the consistency of these observations with GR can be found in Refs. [14, 201, 202]. Even with the set of ten BBH and one BNS, several outstanding questions remain regarding the origin and evolution of the detected binaries. To date, no binary components have been observed in either of the two putative mass gaps [132, 133] – one between NSs and BHs and the other one due to pair instability supernovae [130, 203]. Perhaps more intriguingly, the component spins, when measurable, tend to favor small magnitudes – contrasting with the sample of Galactic X-ray binaries [204], which have a spread encompassing the entire range of allowed values. This observation, however, comes with the caveat that spin magnitudes could be relatively large, but tilted into the orbital plane. The latter favors a formation scenario where no spin alignment process is present, e.g., assembly in globular clusters [163, 165]. Several studies [157–160, 205–210] indicate that with a few hundred detections, more detailed formation scenarios and evolutionary details can be parsed from the population. The BBH sample from O1 and O2 allows for new constraints on the primary mass power law index α = 0.4 +1.3 −1.9 [54]. The third observing run (O3) of Advanced LIGO and Virgo is planned to commence in early 2019. The inferred rate of BBH mergers is 9.7−101 Gpc−3 y −1 and for BNS 110−3840 Gpc−3 y −1 , for NSBH binaries we obtain an improved 90% upper limit of the merger rate of 610 Gpc−3 y −1 ; in combination with further sensitivity upgrades to both LIGO and Virgo as well as the prospects of the Japanese GW detector KAGRA [211–213] joining the network possibly towards the end of O3 in 2019, many tens of binary observations are anticipated in the coming years [188]. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: OK, again good news. My question/s concerns what was the result of the binary NS merger....it says "It could have been a neutron star that collapsed to a black hole after some time or turned immediately into a black hole," So why would there have been any delay before collapsing to BH status? I would imagine once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, then a BH is formed, and after settling down after the merger, wouldn't that have been immediate? And of course an amazing turn of events with more GW's resulting from more collisions in past runs after further research...Amazing stuff!

I was referring to flirting in a more generalised sense, but yeah, I do see your point in that regard.

Hya q-reeus! Yes obviously in large scale structures was what was meant. Admitting?? I simply forgot to include it in my effort to convince our friend the differences between scientific theory, hypotheticals and speculation. The point being that again this article/paper is based on hypotheticals, and that is the prime reason why the Nobel was not awarded for it and nor should it have been. The BB stands as our best explanation of the evolution of space, time, matter, energy from a point t+10-43 seconds. Let me say though, that while being hypothetical, it is still part of science, and the possibility exists where observations and/or experiments could give it some validation. In the meantime and in the foreseeable future, the BB stands along with GR as our prime description of the evolution of the universe and space and time. While GR may support a universe with no BB, the BB anyway fits hand in glove with GR....and the important thing to consider, is if we did find any observational evidence validating a "no BB scenario" as we currently understand it, it would I envisage be an Oscillating type scenario, and one of the theories that was in competition with the BB and Steady State in the early fifties...And also just as obviously if this "Oscillating" sometimes now called the Big Bounce was shown to be more likely then the context of the BB we now currently accept, it would in actual fact entail a BB anyway, probably a number of BB's as the bounces reoccurred. But again, the Oscillating and Steady State fell out of favour due to the continued evidence supporting the BB, until the CMBR was discovered, which saw the complete demise of the other two.

In that regard and many others, I am in complete agreement with you. In other cases, sometimes harmless flirting can be misconstrued by some women.

He, coffee was asking why this Jordan never received the Nobel for what was.is no more then a possible hypothetical situation. I replied that Einstein missed the Nobel for the obvious work and listed some of the possible reasons why that happened in Einstein's case...One was anti semitism among other possible reasons I supplied in an article.

That's your prerogative but I will continue to post when the need arises and correct any errors and/or misconceptions that I recognise.. .

Anyone into yodeling? Listen to this Ukrainian youngster........... And a famous Aussie yodeler.......

And I likewise pointed out that even Einstein did not get the Nobel for SR or GR, as one would obviously believe or expect. Jordan of course did not have any validated theory, as I pointed out.

Anti gravity is only hypothetical, unless as I have already said, you loosely apply it to DE. Anti matter has never yet really been observed although it was probably created in the first few microseconds of the universe, where it annihilated with normal matter...Although there is still some unknown quantity apparently with why there was a slight excess of normal matter. see..... https://cms.cern/physics/what-and-where-antimatter Again as I said in my first reply, we have many papers written on hypothetical aspects of possible cosmological scenarios that have yet to be validated...This is one of them. ps: GR also predicts worm holes, but as yet they have never been seen or evidenced, so still remain as a hypothetical aspect of GR. The online evidence totally refutes that nonsensical claim...Check out the science forum for the many scientific articles and papers that I post. The trick is of course to know what is hypothetical and/or speculative, as opposed to articles and papers on scientific models, facts and theories. PS: Please note also that the article you linked to is from 2012, not that there is anything wrong with that. The obvious relevant fact is that if this was "validated" as you appear it to want to be, then we would have heard more up to date data as to its validity or otherwise. Yes it was an interesting article and where I get most of my new science stories from, although again the journalistic lean towards sensationalism in headlines needs to be watched. Let me make a late addition, anti matter has been created in the Lab in the form of Positrons..

I didn't say anti gravity voids...I said anti matter voids, which you mentioned. Now again, where are these anti matter voids? And of course it is still only hypothetical...no experimental and/or observational data, just "could be from". Again GR is not in question as you would like to imply, simply continually being further tested in line with further observations. If it faails these, then that's big big news. Your other nonsense is ignored. Exactly...If for argument sake we planets stars etc, were all made of anti matter, then we would be calling that anti matter, matter, and matter, anti matter if you get my drift.

As per my first post on this matter, if it is shown that De-Grasse Tyson is guilty with intent, then throw the book at him. But obviously sometimes some nonsense is undertaken as I also mentioned before, and in many cases its her word against his.

GR is not really in question yet, rather tests, research and data are continually being checked, to determine whether GR stands up to the further more precise observations....That's science, that's the scientific method and so far it is doing its job admirable.. And I had thought I had mentioned it somewhere, while GR may support a universe with no BB, the BB anyway fits hand in glove with GR....and the important thing to consider, is if we did find any observational evidence validating a "no BB scenario" it would I envisage be an Oscillating type scenario, and one of the theories that was in competition with the BB and Steady State in the early fifties...And also just as obviously if this "Oscillating" sometimes now called the Big Bounce was shown to be nore likely then the context of the BB we now accept, it would in actual fact entail a BB anyway, probably a number of BB's as the bounces reoccurred. But again, the Oscillating and Steady State fell out of favour due to the continued evidence supporting the BB, until the CMBR was discovered, which saw the complete demise of the other two. What do you mean by anti matter voids? Where are these anti matter voids? The forming of the spider web like filiments, is simply gravity over smaller scales acting on galaxies etc, while the overall expansion acts over large scales. Again simply put, the BB still holds pride of place as the theory describing most accurately the evolution of the space, time, matter and energy up to the present day. The singularity that you speak of is simply the region where our laws of physics and GR break down...the quantum/Planck realm, not any singularity of any infinite qualities. "Could stem from" is worth noting. But again, like any good scientist, and like many theories of how the universe came to be, this is another being researched. I wish him the best of luck in actually discovering/observing or some mathematically supported scenario that makes his model viable. It changes nothing though as far as the BB and GR now stand.