Looking at it one must view anything not returning a dollar as fun.
I came across this interesting article.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...xy_040216.html
I have suggested the big bang idea although interesting may have difficulty living to a ripe old age. The following comment by the author of that article
he says
There is a lot to learn.
When it was born, the universe contained only hydrogen and helium. All other elements were forged inside stars and in the explosive deaths of the most massive stars, known as supernovas.
"But we see a lot of other elements around those early quasars," Fan said. "We see evidence of carbon, nitrogen, iron and other elements, and it's not clear how these elements got there. There is as much iron, proportionate to the population of those early systems, as there is in mature galaxies nearby."
Theorists have become increasingly impressed with how rapidly stars must have formed as the Dark Ages ended.
Comments such as these point to the sort of thing I seize upon to reason I may be closer to the answers by removing a start, for if nothing else they will have to increase the age given to the Universe and "tweet"the sums as the day of reckoning doth approach... and being an impertinant fool I sugest the observations will become more difficult to fit the idea as more observations come to hand.
AND Ron re reply for John...having gone on about gravity rain for over a year elsewhere and personally posting over 600 replies to myself I just could not bring myself to offer more than the bare bones I offerred John to grind upon. An example of how I avoid detail in an effort to be brief.
alex