The Big Bang Never Happened - Make way for Plasma

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Cris, Jan 1, 2006.

  1. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,188
    The Big Bang Never Happened

    I’ve seen several references recently to plasma cosmology and have spent the day studying this and the current state of BB theory. I have to admit I now find the obstacles to BB theory overwhelming. It appears to be no longer a theory based on observations but a patchwork of blackboard math models that bear no relationship to reality. The dark matter idea is perhaps the most disastrous and must be the death of BB. Without dark matter BB is dead and dark matter has never been observed and seems highly unlikely will ever be observed.

    But there are other issues that BB can’t explain that further rings its death bell. See the articles below, they have many further references. Fun reading.

    In contrast, plasma cosmology is a refreshing new look at how the universe operates and doesn’t require any of the massive speculations of BB. But it is also a predictive theory and is quite elegant although much work is needed. It is also a more satisfying infinite model with no dramatic beginnings or endings.

    Short extract -

    http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1319591
    http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

    I also suspect that many will continue to cling to BB even in the light of new contradictory observations because they have invested their life work in the theory. They will find it hard to accept they are totally wrong.



    Cris
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Cris

    Has plasma cosmology solved these problems yet?

    - origin of the cosmic background radiation and its isotropy
    - the abundances of helium and deuterium
    - motion of galaxies
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,188
    These are addressed but you'll need to reasses how you think of these things. Remember we have been indoctrinated to believe BB is true and everything is in relationship to that. But BB doesn't address those issues very well when examined more closely. Read the articles.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,358
    I suggest that maybe you've been reading the wrong sources. Plasma cosmology, as I understand it, is largely an internet nutter theory.

    Did you read any astronomy journals, or reputatable popular science publications, or just dodgy internet sites?

    Please explain how you arrived at your assessment that it is "highly unlikely" ever to be observed.

    Have you read any critiques of plasma cosmology, at all, or only pro-plasma sites?

    Which contradictory observations are you thinking of?
     
  8. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,188
    James,

    So read the articles first.
    I'm usualy not easily convinced.
    Dodgy sites - they are usually obvious with some suspicious claims.
    I still have some studying to do.
     
  9. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,188
    You might also like to see this open letter published in the New Scientist 22nd May 2004. Together with a long list of signees and their institutions.

    http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
     
  10. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    The acknowledged flaws in BigBang theory do not automatically validate plasma cosmology.
     
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    Cris

    I understand I may need to reassess those things, but I would also need to understand how plasma theory deals with those observations. Currently, it does not. And these are just a few observations in which plasma theory has not explained.

    And the way I understand plasma (cosmology) is that although plasma certainly does exist, I think it might only be added as a part of BB theory in the formulation of galaxies, if at all. I don't think it has such far reaching effects that have been asserted such to explain the formulation of our universe or to preclude BB theory altogether.

    I will, as you suggest, continue to read up on it, but please remember, there have been a number of cranks and crackpots on the internet who are pushing plasma cosmology, electric sun theories and other such electrical assertions that simply cannot explain many observations or fly in the face of observed and measured phenomena.
     
  12. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,188
    Q,

    Yes understood. I think the emphasis here is more about the faults with BB rather than the strengths of plasma, as Ophiolite also indicates. The idea of dark matter for example doesn't appear to be good science. With such vast quantities required with zero observational evidence, this feels more like religion than science.
     
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,125
    I would tend to agree with you in regards to dark matter. If the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, one would expect to find local dark matter. Unfortunately, since it does not theoretically emit or absord light and does not collide with particles, it would difficult to observe.

    Can we replace dark matter with plasma? Not really, since it has not been observed and should have been observed, especially since it IS plasma.

    I, for one, would be interested in discussing the faults of BB theory and would also be interested to see if plasma theory can explain those faults. If so, both theories could quite possibly be combined.

    But I would also like to see first, plasma theory explain current observations before moving on to other areas.
     
  14. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    Hi! all.

    I don't have much time but I introdused the BB never happened website here, Chris has been nice enough to take a look at it, others may think it flaky, but I've also been reading pro's and con's of the issue.

    **Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened"

    A number of people have asked me to reply to Ned Wright's critique of the BBN. Observation since the last edition of the book was published in 1992 have only served to make the arguments in it stronger and to further contradict Wright's assertions.

    Large Scale Structures

    Wright claims that large scale structures in the universe can be created in the time since the Big Bang given the existence of dark (non-baryonic) matter in the right amounts. There are two errors here. Even calculations by advocates of the Big Bang show that the structures we observe would take about 5 times as long as the Hubble time(the hypothetical time since the Big Bang) to form, even with dark matter. And, second, there is no evidence that dark matter exists.

    Galaxies are organized into filaments and walls that surround large voids that are apparently nearly devoid of all matter. These voids typically have diameters around 140-170Mpc(taking H=70km/sec/Mpc) and occur with some regularity[E. Saar, et al, The supercluster-void network V: The regularity periodogram", Astr. And Astrophys., vol. 393, pp1-23 (2002)]. These are merely the largest structures commonly observed in present-day surveys of galaxies. Still larger structures exist, but are few in number for the simple reason that they are comparable in size with the scope of the surveys themselves.

    Since the observed voids have galactic densities that are 10% or less of the average for the entire observed volume, nearly all the matter would have to be moved out of the voids[F. Hoyle and M.S. Vogeley, "Voids in the Point Source Catalog Survey and the Updated Zwicky Catalog", Astrophys. J., vol 566, pp.641-651, Feb. 20, 2002].**Get the rest here

    ** THE BIG BANG NEVER WAS!

    The CHANDRA X-Ray Observatory is fulfilling its promise. Modern cosmology is being found wanting with every new discovery. The reason is simple. The universe is governed by the powerful electric force, not gravity. So by detailed imaging in x-rays, Chandra is able to see clearly for the first time the tell-tale signature of electrical activity in the centres of cosmic powerhouses - supernovae and galactic centres. What will replace present cosmology? A new PLASMA cosmology. Plasma constitutes 99.999% of the matter in the universe. It is staggering to realise that Big Bang cosmology is restricted largely to the physics of 0.001% of the universe - solids, liquids and gases on the surface of this planet! And much of the accepted physics of stars is untestable by experiment.** The rest here

    Intro to plasma cosmology:click

    There's still lot of reading to do, time is limited for me, many questions may be answered in those sites above, this is new folkes, so there will be lots of pro's and cons to the new theory of plasma cosmology, but in the end, science will prevail.

    Godless
     
  15. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    >> plasma cosmology is a refreshing new look at how the universe operates ..........is quite elegant although much work is needed. >>>

    indeed, much works

    But guess what.... if you talk about it, you will get ridiculed,
    LOL..... other established theories have become law nowadays......

    from link

    >> in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, >>

    under the threat of universal net moderation...... yea may not speak your mind, nor mention your research...
    Moderators net wide are comatose in current theory... strange really considering science is the topic


    and NO ONE knows even one truth !!!!!

    >> The universe is governed by the powerful electric force, >>>

    again correct.... E and g are one and the same.... though mediated through B


    As an aside

    Considering "water in space" and the BB (also GR) are so indoctrinated into the population... I wonder if the God botherers are behind this destruction of proper scientific validation.

    I have NEVER experienced this total shut down on thoughtful scientific discussion, as show by numerous net science discussion (forum) sites..... something is being buried, IMO !

    THE New World Order even writes the science of the day....... mmmh, this was predicted in science fiction....

    There is only one "free" true science forum on the net......
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2006
  16. URI IMU Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    729
    >>Has plasma cosmology solved these problems yet?

    - origin of the cosmic background radiation and its isotropy
    - the abundances of helium and deuterium
    - motion of galaxies >>>

    I would say (a) and (c) are solved//// helium ?

    >> Galaxies are organized into filaments and walls that surround large voids that are apparently nearly devoid of all matter.


    Magnetic Bloch walls
     
  17. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,188
    Q,

    Yes agreed. More later.
     
  18. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Ah, TruthSeeker. I see you use a consistent posting style. Will you shortly be changing your name to TrashShouter? I shall copy and paste my remarks to you from another thread, since they seem apposite here.

    Thank you TruthSeeker for your thoughtful, measured contribution to what could have been an interesting discussion. Are you always so penetrating and analytical in your posts?
     
  19. Cris In search of Immortality Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,188
    Problems with The Big Bang.

    Top 10 problems (Meta Research).

    A short list of the leading problems faced by the big bang in its struggle for viability as a theory:

    1. Static universe models fit the data better than expanding universe models.
    2. The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
    3. Element abundance predictions using the big bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
    4. The universe has too much large scale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
    5. The average luminosity of quasars must decrease with time in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
    6. The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
    7. The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
    8. Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
    9. The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
    10 If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just a part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

    Ref: - http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBproblems.asp

    Top 30 problems (Meta Research 2002).

    http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp

    Is the universe expanding? Expansion has not yet been observed.

    http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/DidTheUniverseHaveABeginning.asp

    I'll list relevant extracts later.
     
  20. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Hey! My post was deleted!!!
    That's not nice....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Which one? The asteroid one?
    Well, yeah. That thread deserved it. This one was just to be silly...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Oh... and my name should have already been changed to "PartySeeker"....


    Your're welcome.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Sometimes I'm silly too....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Yep. Does that help with your search to immortality?

    Anyways... what would be a plausible explanation for the data obeserved by the Hubble Telescope? What does the redshift mean, then?

    I'm not saying I believe in the Big Bang. In fact, I've always had my doubts... But I'm curious to understand redshift.....

    Happy New Year, Cris.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yaba Daba! :m:
     
  23. Godless Objectivist Mind Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,197
    TruthSeeker.

    Read the links, lots of cool info there, many questions answered, and others raised ofcourse. Ah! science got to love it.
     

Share This Page