First, dear friends, a perusal of the following web page could help immensely in putting matters here in their present perspective  
Text Box: …we next consider whether the WMAP [Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe satellite] data are uniquely consistent with the standard inflationary Big Bang picture. The answer is no, as the WMAP team has itself indicated. There remains room for radical alternatives. An example is the cyclic picture, in which the universe undergoes a periodic sequence of cycles [P. J. Steinhardt, N. Turok, Science 296, 1436 (2002)]: Expansion from a hot big bang is followed by contraction in a "big crunch" and reemergence in a big bang, and the key events that shaped the large-scale structure of the universe occur before the "bang," a cycle ago. This model offers a very different view of cosmic history, yet it fits all current observations (including the new WMAP results) at least as well as the inflationary picture.
Precision Cosmology? Not Just Yet ..., S. L. Bridle, O. Lahav, J. P. Ostriker (Institute of Astronomy, Cambridge, UK),
P. J. Steinhardt (Dept of Physics, Princeton University, NJ), Science 299, 1532-1533 (2003)
Text Box: In conclusion, dark energy is a physical nonentity, as are dark matter and black holes; see The Galaxy. 
(A black cat in a dark room can be detected before too long; but when that cat is not in the room at all...)
When a theory is fundamentally flawed (such as to explain how stars are born), any speculation (such as how they die) – is bound only to suffer increasingly with observation.
In the final perspective here, giant stars and champagne supernovae are all possible if the environment is right. Since stars are born primarily by fragmentation of matter that is ejected (periodically) from the galactic core, large chunks of stellar matter would generally be found in and around the galactic bulge. (Ejected farther out into the thinning environs, the gregarious bodies would soon bifurcate to become binaries, ternaries, and so on, in a star cluster; see The Sun.)
And so, the sooner we have that greatness in us to accept physics as empirical science and not as current dogma,  the sooner will we be prepared for... The Theory of Everything – now in illustration 'in these here' pages!
Text Box: An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, 22 May 2004, p 20)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory....
Read the whole article also in:
          Go back to Part 1 of 2
A Synopsis The Cosmos The Spin
ADDENDA The Cosmological Redshift The Neutrino
Two-Slit Tests The Galaxy Nuclear Reactions
NASA Tests Gravity The Sun
KamLAND Test Anti-Gravity The Pulsar
UCLA Test Relativity Superconductivity
Q and A Mass-Energy Fusion Energy
 Eugene Sittampalam
 17 June 2007