Mirror mirror tell me who is the best! NGST

I thougth of something that can give some point to the meta model:
The metal abundance that will be mesured in the spectrum of the distant objetc. The BB predict that their will be less metalic element in the pass. If this test fail for BB then meta will gain 1 point and BB loss 1! In the meta model a uniform level of metal is permitted (I gess) in a region of 15 billion light year ?

The metal mix of bodies is a good point and a lot stars are out of step with the BB model but I don't think this is any different in the MM model. Is this true or not? The fusion model is used by both models and this theory is the cause of metal related conflicts in either model.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The fusion model <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Do you know other models for the generation of metals?

Am'I right when I tell that the meta model give an infinite age to the universe? If so why don't we see more metal. Is their a mecanism to replendish the hydrogen? How does the meta model explain that?

I don't know the answers to all your questions-they are thought provoking. Hydrogen can be replentished and is in accelerators. So, that question is answered. I wonder if a bad model such as the fusion model is better than no model but as far as I know the fusion model is the only model for metal formation.

I read about simulation of the colapse of the primordial hydrogen cloud that formed supermasive star that burn in only few million years and exploded as supernova and furnish the universe with the first cloud of metal enriched hydrogene. (So I suppose that they observed more metal than expected.)

May be, the NGST will see some of those super star! They were supposed to be very hot emitting mainly in UV. Will the redshift be sufficient to show some spectral line from the UV? The spectrum will contain mainly H, He and Li and a variable amount of metals depending on the age of the star. May be the IR will detect some proto-super star...
May be their will be object found to have a red-shift of more than 15 GY. And if their spectrum reveal normal amount of metals then BigBang may finally colapse!<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

My purpose is only to see if observation that will be made by the NGST and is succesors, will permit to see if a model is beter than the other.

An estential quality for a theory is to be able to make predictions.
I find the Meta Model very interesting, but I don't know it enough to make predictions.

Is their someboby who knowns the MM enough to make predictions?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What metaresearch model thinks will be seen?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

MM has an infinite universe, BB a finite one. BB expects the space density of stars to drop off rapidly well before magnitude 33. MM expects (most likely) no drop-off, at least in most directions. (But at some distance, this "ocean" of galaxies, like all oceans, must come to a "shore" and change character.)

When applying this test, remember that MM and BB have different distance-redshift relations, and that quasar redshifts are not primarily cosmological in MM.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>why don't we see more metal?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

In MM, the local universe has reacjed a "steady state" for metal production, wherein on average supernova explosions destroy as many old metals as they create new metals. -|Tom|-

[just back from the Austrailian eclipse, but still buried in work]