No More Big Bang

FordGTGuy

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2005
Messages
1,017
Location
Norfolk, VA
I apologize if this is a repost but its worth being shown again. If you have a thing for astronomy you will love the following video. It's concerning the electric model of the universe and in turn actually simplifies everything. For instance:

-Everything wasn't created out of nothing... no big bang.
-Space isn't somehow expanding throughout the universe in between galaxies.. though they also collide with one another.
-No dark matter or dark energy or black holes.
-No nuclear furnace driving stars.
-No "dirty snowball" comets circling the sun without melting.

Please take the time to watch the video. It's very easy to understand and you'll be amazed how obvious the answers are. If everything in life and chemistry is governed by electrical charges, why wouldn't it govern the universe?


Couldn't figure out how to embed :nonono: :
Thunderbolts Of The Gods - YouTube

Science is based on theories which neither implies fact or a guess. Theories are created using data which is known to be correct, this allows theories to not be written in stone.

This is why science in it's core is about disproving theories more than it's about creating theories. In fact you can pay no scientist a better compliment than to disprove his theory. In religion such a act is looked down upon while in science there is no better achievement.

-Everything wasn't created out of nothing... no big bang.
- The big bang theory itself does not talk about what existed before the big bang it's about the event itself and the aftermath of the event. As of right now the big bang theory is still the leading theory as to the beginning of the known universe.

-Space isn't somehow expanding throughout the universe in between galaxies.. though they also collide with one another.
Evidence actually shows that space is in fact expanding and can be seen everywhere around us, galaxies collide because not every galaxy travels at the same speed or in the same direction.

-No dark matter or dark energy or black holes.
Dark matter is still a unproven theory and black holes are very real as seen by visual evidence of them consuming stars.

-No nuclear furnace driving stars.
Nuclear reactions are the only known force strong enough to make a star work and the radiation and heat released by stars is just more evidence to back it up.

-No "dirty snowball" comets circling the sun without melting.
a Stars gravitational pull and heat range do not coincide, in fact if it wasn't for our atmosphere the Earth would be much colder because of the lack of a greenhouse affect. Evidence leans on the side that comet trails are a mix of ice and dirt from the comet itself.

For someone trying to get a point across you're not very much open to other ideals.
 
Last edited:

wurd2

Bingo.
Established Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
3,932
Location
Garage
Rossim22 said:
What I find absolutely crazy about the current model is...

Do be careful here. If you do not have an educational background in physics, the delta between your internal understanding of the standard model of particle physics and the actual standard model of particle physics is, in all likelihood, extremely vast. Like most physics enthusiasts, I do not have a formal education in the field. And forgive me any offense, but I assume you are in the same boat. Having pulled the carpet of expertise out from under our conversation, I will attempt to address a few points of yours that I feel I have learned something about.

Rossim22 said:
-Bending space time. This also simply does not make logical sense and appears to be out of a sci-fi book. How can essentially nothing, bend and curve?

Three points here:
  • According to Lawrence Krauss, empty space is anything but empty. It is rather a bubbling broth of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence on a time scale so short that we cannot measure them. But we can measure their effects on atoms and nuclei indirectly. In fact, most of the energy in the universe actually resides in empty space.
  • The software running on GPS satellites uses Einstein's mathematical equations from his special theory of relativity to account for gravity's curving effect on the fabric of space and the resulting distortion of the passage of time. Without Einstein's equations, GPS technology would not work at all. But because GPS does in fact work like a charm, as we all know, we can be certain that gravity warps and stretches space in the precise manner that Einstein predicted and mathematically modeled.
  • We can observe light as it travels through space that is curved by gravity. As we would expect, the light follows and obeys the curve in the fabric of space.
Rossim22 said:
-Dark matter/dark energy. This only became a theory AFTER scientists measured the rate of rotation of a typical spiral galaxy and found that everything should be flying apart because gravity is so weak. They said "something" must be there and we can't see it so it must not give off... or reflect light. Now all of the stars and planets are only 4% of the universe to keep gravity alive.

I think the important point about dark matter and dark energy is that we do not know what they are, but we know they are there because we can observe their effects indirectly. According to Lawrence Krauss, dark energy, or the energy of empty space, is gravitationally repulsive and is causing the expansion of the universe to accelerate. This discovery was recently awarded a Nobel Prize.

Rossim22 said:
...the current model is what I accepted first, not the electric model...but it seems to have more contradictions while the plasma cosmology model explain things with rational, common sense answers. We simply would not have magnetic fields anywhere if there was not electricity flowing in space.

As a rationalist and science enthusiast, I have learned to stick with the consensus of scientific research because I trust in the scientific method and the cleansing nature of the peer review process. I always look at it in terms of peer-reviewed publication counts:
  • Standard Model of Particle Physics: THOUSANDS
  • Plasma Cosmology: DOZENS
  • Electric Universe: ZERO
Rossim22 said:
...I would be a firm big bang believer.

Obviously you are free to believe as you will, but you are tossing a scientific theory around that is backed by mountains of observational evidence (as any established scientific theory is). And in proclaiming big bang theory incorrect, you are essentially saying the whole of the physics community is just wrong about the universe. This is highly unlikely.

.
 
Last edited:

tt54l32v

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2007
Messages
2,385
Location
dothan
The problem is your using a theory to disprove another theory.
Whether the big bang is correct or not, you have to pause when someone says nothing exploded and created everything and it expanded faster than should be possible and 75% of the shit is missing.
 

astrodudepsu

1of72 Hater
Established Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
8,638
Location
Reston, VA / Red Lion, PA
Are there more specific questions you want to ask? I'm not going to go through all the posts.

You never answered by question of which tail of a comet you want me to address. Comets have TWO tails.
 

James Snover

The Ill-Advised Physics Amplification Co
Established Member
Premium Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2008
Messages
8,862
Location
Cypress
No nuclear furnace in the heart of a star, eh? Tell me why Missler makes this assertion.

As for things being simple, the standard theory of a star couldn't be much more simple: A huge mass of gas contracts under its own gravity. Fusion ( a thermonuclear reaction, by the way) begins and inflates the star, preventing it from collapsing completely. A balance is struck between gravity squeezing the star smaller, and fusion inflating the star larger. A feedback mechanism that doesn't get much more simple.

But please, tell me why Missler thinks a star operates by another mechanism, and what that mechanism is, and how it is any more simple than the standard model of a star.

Jim Snover
 

1hot281

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,942
Location
The States
-Bending space time. This also simply does not make logical sense and appears to be out of a sci-fi book. How can essentially nothing, bend and curve?

How is space-time "essentially nothing"? Space-time is the fabric of the Universe... and the effects of gravity on space-time, as described by General Relativity, is testable and stands up to peer review constantly. I'm not going to preach it's a "fact" or "proven" because nothing in science is an absolute... but space-time is a strong candidate with plenty of data to support it's existence.

-Dark matter/dark energy. This only became a theory AFTER scientists measured the rate of rotation of a typical spiral galaxy and found that everything should be flying apart because gravity is so weak. They said "something" must be there and we can't see it so it must not give off... or reflect light. Now all of the stars and planets are only 4% of the universe to keep gravity alive.

Yes Dark Matter & Energy were theorized after observations weren't matching up with predictions, despite the same predictions working incredibly well on local, smaller scales. They inserted a set of hypothetical variables that could makes sense with the data provided.

"Keep gravity alive"? Right... because our predictions of galactic motion with the information we had available at the time, not being entirely accurate, completely invalidates the existence of gravity?


-Black holes. They seem to constantly contradict themselves as they have been found to emit a stream of light... though light cannot escape it's gravitational force... not to mention the Information Loss problem.

"Light" cannot "escape" once it passes the Event Horizon of a Black Hole.

and what Information Loss problem are you referring to? The paradox between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics?


-Comets. Comets are said to be huge blocks of ice and their tails are streams of dust and ice illuminated by the sun's solar wind and radiation... however the Deep Impact mission completely turned everything upside down. Comets aren't even smooth and appear to be exactly like asteroids with a different orbit and the electrical model proposed numerous theories at what would happen during the mission and was proved right over and over. Again, they found NO ice!

Comets are not "huge blocks of ice". They're usually loosely packed balls of dust, ice, and other materials including in some rare cases, organic material.

What theories did the Electric Universe model predict that were accurate in the Deep Impact mission?

Deep Impact certainly has found ice on comets.

NASA - Deep Impact

NASA - Deep Impact Team Reports First Evidence of Cometary Ice



You are right in now that I "want" it to be right I will ignore those obvious facts of the real world placed right in front of me. However, the current model is what I accepted first, not the electric model.. but it seems to have more contradictions while the plasma cosmology model explain things with rational, common sense answers. We simply would not have magnetic fields anywhere if there was not electricity flowing in space. If there was more evidence that comets are just dirty ice balls from the "kepler" belt and that dark energy has been found and proven since it encompasses about 75% of the universe, I would be a firm big bang believer. :read:

Until then, I'm going to believe that the dark energy and matter are just stand-in variables for the force that scientists cannot explain. Not to mention that the red-shift is just a measure of how far away the galaxy is from it's parent galaxy. :rolling:

Most of the current models have "contradictions" because they're incomplete. Science is aware of this, and that's why the Unified Field Theory or "Theory of Everything" has been a hot topic for decades.

On the flip side, what exactly does "Plasma Cosmology" explain? and by explain, i mean, make quantifiable predictions? Even if the current model explanation has errors, when you introduce an alternate model to address some of those errors, your alternate model should explain everything the current model already explains. Not just nitpick specific things.

As for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, there is some evidence of the existence of Dark Matter. For one; through the observable phenomenon of "gravitational lensing" of light from distant objects (stars galaxies blah blah blah) which is passing though basically "empty space". Yet SOMETHING is producing a gravity field between us and those objects, and whatever it is, we can't see it with conventional means...

The problem is your using a theory to disprove another theory.
Whether the big bang is correct or not, you have to pause when someone says nothing exploded and created everything and it expanded faster than should be possible and 75% of the shit is missing.

Again, no one ever said "Nothing exploded and created everything". Most current cosmological models that adopt a Big Bang beginning don't go any farther back than a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second (10^-43 seconds) after the big bang... they simply explain everything from that time forward. No current model using classical physics would dream of attempting to explain what existed at the exact moment of the big bang, or before the big bang...

and most models explain inflation as the universe, the fabric of space-time itself, expanding at an exponential rate. The fabric of space-time doesn't have a theoretical speed limit.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread



Top