John Smith wrote:
Oh yeah, and I DO have the exact date of the big bang, you can pass it on to
the scientists for me--0 B.O.S. (Zero Birth Of Star)
Just a hair before the first star forming.... grin

It probably took more than a hair from the Big Bang until the
first hydrogen atom formed and some time from that point until
the first star ignited. And the entire universe was opaque
until Mother Nature said, "Let there be light!" :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Yes Cecil, I concede your point, just poking a bit of fun--I am sure your
explanation is just as possible, if not more possible...

However, back then, God was probably measuring time in "universe creations!"
If you think about it, in such a time frame "hair" may be an accurate
description... grin

But, I am not sure the big bang only left free neutrons and electrons (which
had to form atoms)--I was thinking more "whole atoms" of some type...



Warmest regards,

John

John Smith wrote:
But, I am not sure the big bang only left free neutrons and electrons (which
had to form atoms)--I was thinking more "whole atoms" of some type...

You left out protons. There existed a condition after the Big
Bang where everything was too hot to form "whole atoms".
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Well, that is beyond my comprehension, that much "space" being "too hot",
never-the-less, you could well be correct...

Regards,
John

"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
| John Smith wrote:
| But, I am not sure the big bang only left free neutrons and electrons
(which
| had to form atoms)--I was thinking more "whole atoms" of some type...
|
| You left out protons. There existed a condition after the Big
| Bang where everything was too hot to form "whole atoms".
| --
| 73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp
|
| ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
| ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----

John Smith wrote:
Well, that is beyond my comprehension, that much "space" being "too hot",
never-the-less, you could well be correct...

There wasn't "that much space" back then. I forget how big
the Big Bang source space was, but it was extremely small
compared to the present universe and therefore extremely hot.
Incidentally, our "laws" of physics don't work until some
time after the Big Bang.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----