big bang theory made by idiots?

[joe]

CMBR What does it prove - that there's plasma energy out there? 99.9% of the universe ain't it? Plasma is a wideband source.

It isn't a remnant of the event we call the Big Bang, as has been claimed by other respected astronomers?

[GordonCopestake]

George F. Smoot of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California and John C. Mather of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland were awarded science’s highest honor for depicting the universe as it was 380,000 years after its birth in the Big Bang.

Their feat, precisely measuring the faint light that revealed the seeds of today’s galaxies and superclusters, affirmed the big-bang theory to even the most stubborn skeptics.

Smoot and Mather won the 2006 Nobel physics prize for their role as chief architects of a NASA satellite observatory named COBE, for Cosmic Background Explorer. Launched in 1989, the spacecraft measured feeble remnants of light that originated early in the history of the universe, about 380,000 years after the big bang. Until then the universe was opaque to light, making it impossible to directly observe anything older.

[cigarshaped]

Smoot and Mather are awarded great honours for their measurements, started in 1989. But what have they affirmed?

Originally a black body spectrum was needed to show a cosmic braking mechanism had caused the state of thermal equilibrium. Then the clumpy universe was discovered, so we've been looking for minute fluctuations in microwave energy. And so it goes on, theorists introduce modifications to fit the observations.

I am not convinced by this sort of science. George Smoot himself said "using the forces we now know, you can't make the universe we know now." Perhaps this is why the idea of Dark Matter was introduced over a decade ago, to help bolster this creaky theory.

Joe:"It isn't a remnant of the event we call the Big Bang, as has been claimed by other respected astronomers (?)"

I agree with you Joe, these 'respected astronomers' have careers to protect. It's the non-professionals who need to move this question along. But how can alternative views be seen in print if the peer reviewers want to protect the status quo?

[joe]

Joe:"It isn't a remnant of the event we call the Big Bang, as has been claimed by other respected astronomers (?)"

I agree with you Joe, these 'respected astronomers' have careers to protect. It's the non-professionals who need to move this question along. But how can alternative views be seen in print if the peer reviewers want to protect the status quo?

Hey, who put parentheses around my "?" ?

Any alternative hypothesis is welcome but I was actually asking you if you think that the CMBR is not what it is claimed to be. If you do indeed agree with me then it would be with an open-minded acceptance of the current Big Bang model. I don't believe that's the case considering what you have expressed.

[davep]

And so it goes on, theorists introduce modifications to fit the observations.

Is that a bad thing?

[cigarshaped]

Well gents,

Joe, forgive my parentheses, you're right, I am not convinced by the CMBR arguments. My mind is open to alternatives that don't require dark matter and accelerating red-shifts to support them. I accept that microwave radiation and all its weird shapes is around us, but maybe for different reasons.

cigarshaped wrote:
And so it goes on, theorists introduce modifications to fit the observations.

Is that a bad thing?

Well Davep you would hope that the theory predicts the observations and does not need endless patches to make it fit them. You might also hope that each new challenge would awaken the question: "Is our original hypothesis wrong?".

What is a lot worse is when contradictory evidence is not only omitted but blatently edited out. This is what Halton Arp claims happened to images of quasars joined to galaxies via gas 'jets'. Our 'respected astronomers' allowed these images to be cropped or edited to avoid questioning the sacred red-shift assumption.

[davep]

Is that a bad thing?

Well Davep you would hope that the theory predicts the observations and does not need endless patches to make it fit them.

Why? If a theory mostly works but is also involved in an iterative process of refinement, what's the problem?

You might also hope that each new challenge would awaken the question: "Is our original hypothesis wrong?".

And it doesn't?

What is a lot worse is when contradictory evidence is not only omitted but blatently edited out. This is what Halton Arp claims happened to images of quasars joined to galaxies via gas 'jets'. Our 'respected astronomers' allowed these images to be cropped or edited to avoid questioning the sacred red-shift assumption.

Interesting. Where can I find more?

[cigarshaped]

Davep,

I've just posted something similar to Spodzone so here's my bit for today:
I am convinced that the Electric model of the Universe not only answers the questions but is predicting the observations. This is the growing counter-example to the heavily gravitationally biased conventions of the past 100 years or so. It therefore challenges virtually everything leading up to the BB hypothesis.

A small dedicated group of scientists and engineers are posting their findings on several websites that I will list at the end.

Fundamentally the conventional assumption has been that if 99.9% of the universe is plasma, ie ionised and conductive gas (H), then it must be electrically neutral. On Earth we saw flames, sparks and lightning before arc welding, neon lights and plasma TVs came along. But our experience of outer space, the home of 4th state of matter, was somewhat limited. (Check out 19Jan07_TPOD on lightning)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/home.htm

It only needs a tiny difference in charge between +ions and -ve electrons to create a potential difference. These charges can be separated by thousands of miles and still affect each other. If you remember from school days that is what we need to move charge ie create electric current.

In the gas discharge lab potentials of 1000's of volts re-create conditions in space and show the peculiar behaviour of ionised gas. Not only does it separate into distinct zones of light and dark, but it also forms filaments. Such filaments were shown by Kristian Birkeland in his aurora experiments
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/whaur1.html
and we see them in novelty plasma balls. Notice how they twist together in pairs. Because they carry electric current they generate their own magnetic fields and this is one easy way to detect plasma current even when it is invisible to the eye.
http://www.holoscience.com/synopsis.php?page=2
Another feature of this magnetic field is that it will 'pinch' the filament under certain conditions, a bit like an electromagnetic focus, but extremely powerful. Examples of this are the conditions involved in nuclear explosions. Experiments at Los Alamos National Physics Labs and at our own Atomic Weapons Establishment reproduce these massive discharge phenomena across millimetres, for nanoseconds.

Slowed down by very expensive X-ray high speed cameras the Dense Plasma Focus gun shows remarkable transformations. These images can be seen scaled up to planetary nebula, galaxies and funnily enough carved on rocks by megalithic humans.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... a-rock.htm

I could go on with many other subjects but we come back to how does a galaxy work if it is not simply a gravitational phenomenon, but has a serious electrical component. Does it need a Black Hole to explain its characteristics? Is its energy source a gigantic network of current carrying filaments strung throughout the super cluster? Is the red-shift phenomena linked with the energy resonance of these constantly re-birthing sources of life and matter?

Does this not blow away most present theories and say let's start from scratch there is a 10^37 more powerful force than gravity that we have known about for 200 years but failed to include in our equations??? Maybe when we can say how things work now, THEN we can re-evaluate the evidence for a Big Bang?
If you want it in print then The Electric Sky is a good belated New Year present:http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm
List of some other links here:
http://www.holoscience.com/links.php

[joe]

It does look very interesting and I'll spend some time reading when I have it, but one or two things stood out when I read the Q&A.

[quote="In the interview, author of The Electric Sky, Donald E. Scott,"]Q: How do you know Black Holes don’t exist? Can you prove they don’t exist?
A: The main difference between science and pseudoscience is that true scientists never propose unfalsifiable hypotheses and then challenge you to falsify them. For example there’s an old debating trick: “Prove to me there isn’t a rhinoceros under this table. It’s an invisible, unsmellable rhino, and you can’t feel it – it has no mass. But it is THERE. Prove to me it isn’t.â€

[cigarshaped]

A bit soon to expect replies after doling out that lot.
Joe you've managed a chunk already -

Are accretion discs that "off the wall"? Even I can grasp the concept. They have even been photographed. Admittedly the jets are problematical but I often read about magnetic fields and plasma being big players in the mechanics of the solar system and beyond. Am I wrong? Perhaps I need to read a bit more of what plasma physics is about.

Slightly off the BB but I always felt accretion an oversimplification of what we actually find.
Wiki accretion disks says:

An accretion disk is a structure formed by material falling into a gravitational source. Conservation of angular momentum requires that, as a large cloud of material collapses inward, any small rotation it may have will increase. Centripetal force causes the rotating cloud to collapse into a disc, and tidal effects will tend to align this disc's rotation with the rotation of the gravitational source in the middle. Viscosity within the disc generates heat and saps orbital momentum, causing material in the disc to spiral inward until it impacts in an accretion shock on the central body if the body is a star, or slips toward the accretion shock if the central body is a black hole.
...active galactic nuclei, protoplanetary discs, and gamma ray bursts are only a few phenomena in which they are thought to occur. These discs very often give rise to jets coming out of the axis of rotation of the disc. The mechanism that produces these jets is not understood.

Assuming that you can explain a 'gravitational source', 'large cloud of material', 'accretion shock' etc this sounds like it was invented on a sandy beach holiday compared to what we know about plasma. It also relies on the idea that each object in space is disconnected, apart from these magical 'clouds of material'.
If twisting plasma filaments produce magnetic hotspots, that generate major axis spiralling currents and minor axis jets, then we have the makings of galaxies, solar systems and an assortment of em radiation sources. They are also linked invisibly by good old electric current. So did we need the black holes, etc?

The mechanism that produces these jets is not understood.

that's because it isn't a mechanism!
Valle Marineris is a whole new ball game. Needs a new post I think.

[davep]

I've just posted something similar to Spodzone so here's my bit for today:

Am I to take it that you've got a hypothesis that you wish to promote? That's nice. But it doesn't really answer the questions I asked does it?

[cigarshaped]

Guess I better answer questions too.

Are accretion discs that "off the wall"? Even I can grasp the concept. They have even been photographed.

There's nothing 'off the wall', just the opposite. They are very down to earth mechanically minded ideas. You could probably make a very nice CGI movie to demonstrate it. It worries me that gravity is the only force seen to be at work. Newton saw the apple and wrote his laws based on the earthly physics he could see. We've known about electricity for 200 years. It's 10^27 times more powerful yet still not recognised in space.
Disks of material exist - doesn't make them 'accretion' disks though. Same as circular dents on the Moon; they've had to be 'impact' craters (for about 10 years?) since no other cause has been envisaged.

Admittedly the jets are problematical but I often read about magnetic fields and plasma being big players in the mechanics of the solar system and beyond. Am I wrong?

Boy! Are the jets a problem for the mechanical system. But I must warn you about the second bit "magnetic fields and plasma being big players in the mechanics of the solar system". You cannot segregate a magnetic field and plasma from electric current. All 3 must co-exist that's nature. If you remove electric current, as the astrophysicists seem to do, then you are changing the laws of nature!

[joe]

What worries me a great deal while I read through some of the pages you have linked to is the constant assertion that plasma scientists are right and astrophysicists, particle physicists, planetary scientists, and geologists are wrong because they know nothing of plasma physics. It is not suggested that they are mistaken, they are snearingly dismissed.

Nevertheless, that's not a reason to stop reading. I'll continue when I can but it all looks decidedly circumstantial and I don't buy the rock carvings at all.

[cigarshaped]

Joe:

..wrong because they know nothing of plasma physics. It is not suggested that they are mistaken, they are snearingly dismissed.

I guess a certain amount of frustration must creep into the Electric Universe arguments when so much effort seems to be spent on keeping controversial ideas out of the public/ academic arena. The impression that academics give is for closed rather than open minds; careers and funding, maintaining the 'belief' system, etc. As with Wikipedia, if its not in print it can't be true?

At least now the Thunderbolts group are spreading out from webpages to DVDs, books and even IEEE papers. It is high time they were allowed out of the closet to challenge accepted ideas and promote real science, based on observation and experiment.

As for the rock art, you probably have to see the mass of evidence first hand to appreciate its weight. I witnessed (and videod) the investigator himself in May 2005 and its hard to dispute his argument. His public appearance in September this year will be our next opportunity to quiz him in person.