For this theory to have any credibility, it must explain a number of
- The chemical makeup of stars in globular clusters and near the
core of a galaxy is fundamentally different. The stars in the globular
clusters and near the core of the galaxy are classified as
Population II stars and the stars in the spiral arms are
Population I stars. These are fundamental differences that cannot
be accounted for by a few billion years in age.
- Stellar formation. The early universe was composed of hydrogen and
helium. This is easily verifiable by looking at the signatures old stars
and distant galaxies. Yet, the ground that we stand on is not hydrogen
or helium but rather a fair bit of carbon, nitrogen, iron, and a whole
host of other elements. These elements are built up by fusion of hydrogen
and helium. If our Sun is the only star, there is no way for it to
have built up the necessary metals that form our solar system.
- Supernova. Our sun does not have the mass to ever go supernova.
At the end of its life, it will swell up to be a red giant, cast off
a planetary nebula, and shrink down to become a white dwarf. Nothing
really dramatic. However, there are supernova.
- Neutron Stars and black holes. Neutron stars and black holes are the
cores of a huge stars (many solar masses) that have collapsed into very
small regions. Both of these phenomenon mass several times more than
our sun. The sun cannot gain mass during its life, and therefore
these things cannot be any 'reflection' of the sun in time.
- Galactic black holes. Sitting at the core of many galaxies exists
a black hole that is millions or billions of times as massive as the
sun. If the universe is reflections of our local system, there is
no way to account for the enormous mass that has been observed at
the centers of galaxies.
For this 'theory
' to even have the slightest smidgen
of science, it
must make predictions about the universe and account for the way
things are. It does neither, and fails miserably on the later.