here is a post I issued addressing the lithium problem...
Big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) theory, together with the precise WMAP cosmic baryon density, makes tight predictions for the abundances of the lightest elements. Deuterium and 4He measurements agree well with expectations, but 7Li observations lie a factor 3 - 4 below the BBN+WMAP prediction. This 4 - 5 mismatch constitutes the cosmic "lithium problem," with disparate solutions possible. (1) Astrophysical systematics in the observations could exist but are increasingly constrained. (2) Nuclear physics experiments provide a wealth of well-measured cross-section data, but 7Be destruction could be enhanced by unknown or poorly-measured resonances. Physics beyond the Standard Model can alter the 7Li abundance, though D and 4He must remain unperturbed; Physics is inventing outlandish theories for this puzzle including decaying Super symmetric particles and time-varying fundamental constants. Present and planned experiments could reveal which (if any) of these is the solution to the problem. Why don't they consider LENR??? Because they have a closed mind! http://sait.oat.ts.astro.it/MSAIt780307/PDF/2007MmSAI..78..476G.pdf The screening of lithium reactions are as high as 17.4 MeV. LENR is why there is a "Lithium Problem" On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > LENR has produced most of the heavier elements in the universe as a result > of nebular electrostatic consolidation as well as explaining the lithium > problem. > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Giovanni Santostasi < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> The evidence for the Big Bang is not just the red-shift. It has multiple >> lines that actually support each other. For example, the temperature of >> empty space is what you would expect if a universe expanded about 13 >> billion years ago. Also the relative abundance of the elements in the >> universe is a explained very well as a consequence of the Big Bang theory. >> As we go back in time and look at further away galaxies we can see that the >> universe changed in composition and type of stars available. One can fill >> an entire book with the evidence for an evolving cosmos. This article >> doesn't address all these lines of evidence but it explains that there is a >> possible loop hole that could account for the red-shift and being >> consistent with general relativity. But it has more problems that it solves >> without the explanatory power of the Big Bang theory because it doesn't >> address all the things the Big Bang theory addresses. Big Bang theory stays >> perfectly unchallenged. It is just journalistic sensationalism. >> Giovanni >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:53 AM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> They are like weather guys... >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Cosmologists are always changing their story! Anyway, what do they >>>> know? They should stick to cosmetics and hairstyles. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
