A couple more news bits...

(The "bulge" of the Milky Way may have formed SEPARATELY from the disk rather than forming in the disk and migrating inward.)
http://www.physorg.com/news77282250.html

Hmm, interesting, seems to be slightly at odd with the "nebular formation" hypothesis, doesn't it? IE, if the central "bulge" formed separately from the outer disk, what does that imply in the grand sceme of things?

Asteroid "aging?"
http://www.physorg.com/news76778511.html

Interesting that asteroids may in some way be machined or changed over time by the "solar wind." If so, how? What's the mechanism for change? Isn't this essentially what EU theory has been saying for a while. Not saying I completely agree, but they have said that asteroids and comets are similar bodies and are acted upon by the solar winds and EM phenomena. Just sayin'... ;o]

Asteroids/meteors' family resemblance...
http://www.physorg.com/news76939109.html

Of course we'd expect meteorites to resemble asteroids made of similarly composed materials... Again, how does that compare with the prior article about asteroid "aging?" And with the at the very least "superficial" similarity of surface features between comets and asteroids?

Unusual meteorite...
http://www.physorg.com/news6815.html

More meteorite info, above. Apparently some new info on meteorite composition. But, what does it all MEAN Basil?

Problems with dark energy/dark matter?
http://www.physorg.com/news77190620.html

Apparently there are other "alternate" gravity or stellar formation theories (aside from EU), that disagree with "dark matter"/"dark energy" and consider it to be a crutch to support anomalies in current models...

Refueling the cyclical universe model?
http://www.physorg.com/news68731082.html

Not sure if the cyclical universe model is worthwhile or accurate. But there have been plenty of cyclical models of big crunch leading to big bang, and back to big crunch. So, why not another one, right?

Kasei Valles outflow system on Mars?
http://www.physorg.com/news76169659.html

Still not sold on "outflow," personally. But, who knows? In either event, geologically speaking, it looks like the smaller channels off the top were carved first by whatever process, then the larger channel, which is much deeper, was carved through/across/over them. I doubt there's any way the large and small channels were carved at the same time in the same event. Seeing as the smaller channels don't go deeper than about 1/3-1/2 of the way to the bottom of the main channel.

And considering the lack of water and other fluids shown so far on Mars, it just seems unlikely.

And I swear the EU comment at the bottom of the page wasn't by me or anyone I know. But they apparently see similar problems with fluid dynamics too. ;o] *Shrug* C'est la vie.