The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Rossim » Sun Jul 06, 2014 6:25 pm

robheus wrote:
Rossim wrote:Big Bang does imply a beginning to the universe, ...


The Big bang theory does not imply that. It only implies that the proces that caused the hot dense big bang, resulted in a very homogeneous (with small perturbations) hot and dense plasma soup.

Inflation seems to be a good candidate for explaining that.


robheus, you make a lot of claims without offering any information to back it up. Taken from wikipedia, "Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe."

In order for the universe to be expanding, it MUST have come from a singularity, which would be a beginning as we know it. Georges Lemaitre, A Catholic priest, first proposed the expansion of the universe as it requires a prime mover such as God. For this reason, Big Bang theory converges science and religion in an appealing combination of miracles and pseudoscience.
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby viscount aero » Sun Jul 06, 2014 9:54 pm

robheus wrote:The BB theory is just a scientific model that explains that the universe expands. It does not state anything about any beginning of the universe.


The first part of the statement is true.

The second sentence is false.

The BB implies heavy-handedly a beginning from a singularity. There is no other conclusion to be drawn from the theory. The BB is the beginning, allegedly "known" down to a "fraction of a trillionth" of a second.

The whole BB scenario and what is alleged to have occurred is then espoused by establishment science as being a real series of events when these things are in actuality pure fantasy. For example COBE/WMAP/Planck are fantasy space probes that were not actually designed to find anything they allege.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:13 am

@robheus, you wrote:
I only used evolution as a metaphor, because you don't seem satisfied with the idea that the scientific theory of the Big Bang (and not the popular description of it) does not talk about an origin of the universe. So as far as the Big Bang goes, the 'origin' of the universe (if there is one, if that is even a proper idea i and of itself to speak of) is not explained by the Big bang theory - for the reason that the very theory that predicts that there would be a singularity, breaks down near that singularity, and can no longer predict anything - which is the same case for evolution, which neither explains how the first life came about.

OK by your "evolution metaphor".

I´m aware that the BB has huge problems regarding "origin of creation" because this issue is cosmologically hiding behind "a singularity" = really: something they just don´t understand. In my mind origin; creation and evolution is the same topic, really.

Regarding the concept of origin, the human heritage of mythical/religious knowledge has fine and genuine explanations of this in the numeral Stories of Creation. (Link below)

The troubles of interpreting these genuine mythical and cosmological telling of informations, has confused humans for a long long time. The biblical/mythical term, "in the beginning" is taken literary as "a beginning" instead of interpreting the creation stories as "general principles of creation".

This interpretative confusion of "in the beginning" also has a huge role to play when it come to modern understanding of the creation and it was no surprise the Vatican was very pleased with the BB term and its hypothesis, because it fits very well the confused biblical term of the impossible "in the beginning".

When reading of Myths of Creation (Link below) all these tellings really speaks of "eternal creation". Take for instants the Indian prime deities of creation (just read "deities" as "cosmological forces with their special principle qualities")

1. Vishnu = The universal holder of life = Energy.
2. Brahma = The collector and builder of forms. The creative processes of formation.
3. Rudra = The spreader and dissolver of forms. The creative processes of expansion.

Vishnu is the basical media in which everything is created, dissolved and recreated. This "mythical media" is called "the Primeval Sea", which refer to the "vast void of the watery space". This watery media is the universal conductor and connecter of energy, which fluctuates in the whole Universe. Now, hydrogen and helium = "watery fluids" fills the Universe just like the modern term of CMB and its qualities.

Brama is the collecting principle which builds all kind of forms. Building up all forms, demands collecting skills = the electromagnetic attractive force.

Rudra Spreads forms and makes more space between everything = the electromagnetic repulsive force.

There you have the 3 basical qualitative principles which works eternally in the entire Universe. The mythical tellings states these forces and qualitative principles as eternal, which is accordingly to the modern term of "conservation of energy".

So: Ancient knowledge includes a telling of the general formation of everything and how it´s creative forces interacts in the eternal process. The ancient mythical knowledge speaks of "no beginning and no end" and their overall world perception is cyclical = causes and effects are explained.

Compared to the modern and linear scientific world perception with all it´s speculations and "giving it all up in hopeless singularities" and inserting "all kinds of dark this and that stuff and energies", the ancient heritage of knowledge supersedes the modern science by astronomical lengths which never can be catched up with the actual scientifical approaches and mindset.

Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_creation_myths

As mentioned above: Just read deities as cosmological forces; objects; phenomena and qualities and you will be fine and on your way to catch up the astronomical distances between modern assumptions and ancient cosmological knowledge.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Mon Jul 07, 2014 9:58 am

Rossim wrote:robheus, you make a lot of claims without offering any information to back it up. Taken from wikipedia, "Moreover, the Big Bang model suggests that at some moment all matter in the universe was contained in a single point, which is considered the beginning of the universe."


A mathetematical point (which is a single point) does not exist physically.
It has no meaning. Neither can you accumulate all matter of the universe in an ultra small point.

Physics is about quantities which have some measure, a duration a lenth, etc. They are measurements that take at least two points. We can not define that point artbitraliy precise (not smaller then Planck length, etc.). Further, of course GR would break down at t=0, so there was no point t=0. Infinity density is also something unphysical.

See here for an explenation.

The current cosmological model is big bang theory + inflation. So the hot big bang phase starts áfter inflation.
This is important, because at earlier times, the universe was even hotter, and monopoles could have been formed then, but they didn't, at least we do not find them. If the universe was instead inflating, this would give rise to much lower energy scales (during inflation the universe is in fact supercooled), only reheating would cause temperature to rise and creation of all the particles.



In order for the universe to be expanding, it MUST have come from a singularity, which would be a beginning as we know it. Georges Lemaitre, A Catholic priest, first proposed the expansion of the universe as it requires a prime mover such as God. For this reason, Big Bang theory converges science and religion in an appealing combination of miracles and pseudoscience.


Nope. Current cosmological model is big bang + inflation. Inflation does not imply a singularity. Newer models would be for instance a big bounce, as an alternative option (perhaps with also inflation). Also that does not involve a singularity.

The singularity exists only in the theoretical model based on an incomplete understanding of physics, but does not exist physically. Therefore we need a theory that unites QM + GR to make better predictions.

The universe does not have an external cause.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:15 am

The original BB premise was a singularity. Once that was considered impossible it was revised over the years to inculcate various modes of a "beginning" whereby the cosmos was allegedly contained within an ultra-tiny, implausibly small, diameter whose "actual" beginning was "hidden" behind the veil of "inflation". Suffice it to say, fitting the entire universe inside a micro-millimeter space is a total fantasy.
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:22 am

@robheus,
The universe does not have an external cause.

I totally agree. All causes is internal, even the motion which scientists hypothezise as "inflation" is internal.
The scientist just have to interpret the basical laws which can describe fundamental cosmological motions in more than 1 direction.
"No external causes", totally rules out Big Bang - and about time too.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:31 pm

viscount aero wrote:The original BB premise was a singularity. Once that was considered impossible it was revised over the years to inculcate various modes of a "beginning" whereby the cosmos was allegedly contained within an ultra-tiny, implausibly small, diameter whose "actual" beginning was "hidden" behind the veil of "inflation". Suffice it to say, fitting the entire universe inside a micro-millimeter space is a total fantasy.


That is not the entire universe, but only the tiny part we can currently observe.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby viscount aero » Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:37 pm

robheus wrote:
viscount aero wrote:The original BB premise was a singularity. Once that was considered impossible it was revised over the years to inculcate various modes of a "beginning" whereby the cosmos was allegedly contained within an ultra-tiny, implausibly small, diameter whose "actual" beginning was "hidden" behind the veil of "inflation". Suffice it to say, fitting the entire universe inside a micro-millimeter space is a total fantasy.


That is not the entire universe, but only the tiny part we can currently observe.


Please explain ...
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Tue Jul 08, 2014 12:13 am

robheus stated:
That is not the entire universe, but only the tiny part we can currently observe.

Correct. The only thing we can do, is to examen the very basics of what we can observe and assume these basical conditions also goes for what we cannot observe.
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:16 am

Native wrote:robheus stated:
That is not the entire universe, but only the tiny part we can currently observe.

Correct. The only thing we can do, is to examen the very basics of what we can observe and assume these basical conditions also goes for what we cannot observe.


That is just to say that you assume the Copernican principle, what all cosmologists assume basically.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby robheus » Tue Jul 08, 2014 6:18 am

viscount aero wrote:
robheus wrote:
viscount aero wrote:The original BB premise was a singularity. Once that was considered impossible it was revised over the years to inculcate various modes of a "beginning" whereby the cosmos was allegedly contained within an ultra-tiny, implausibly small, diameter whose "actual" beginning was "hidden" behind the veil of "inflation". Suffice it to say, fitting the entire universe inside a micro-millimeter space is a total fantasy.


That is not the entire universe, but only the tiny part we can currently observe.


Please explain ...


Going back in time, the observable universe shrinks down to a tiny patch. But there is nothing to forbid us to think, an it is even assumed that that tiny patch itself was part of an infinite (or very large) space, but which regions expanded in parts of the universe far outside of our observational horizon.

So a correct understanding of the expansion of space is to think of space as a rubber sheet. Draw a little circle on it to mark the space that we can observe, and think of expansion of (3D space, pictured as a 2D rubber sheet) as the expansion of that rubber sheet in all (2d) directions.
robheus
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2014 7:21 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Rossim » Tue Jul 08, 2014 9:24 am

A correct understanding of the expansion of space is that space is not expanding. Space is the emptiness which contains everything in the universe, assuming that the emptiness itself is expanding is illogical. And by dismissing the use of a singularity, you're dismissing GR and it's concepts. Therefore, there is no need to be bound by gravitational restrictions.

Your arguments are entirely theoretical, and full of science fiction and thoughtful phrases. You need to come back down to reality and think scientifically. Think about what you can measure and what you're assuming. I have no urge to respond any further because you're just back tracking and showing zero motivation to comprehend anything anyone says. Good luck
Rossim
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:46 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Native » Tue Jul 08, 2014 10:13 am

@robheus
Native wrote:robheus stated:

That is not the entire universe, but only the tiny part we can currently observe.

Correct. The only thing we can do, is to examen the very basics of what we can observe and assume these basical conditions also goes for what we cannot observe.

That is just to say that you assume the Copernican principle, what all cosmologists assume basically.

Oh no. I for instants include the modern observations of the galactic rotation anomaly which directly contradicts "the Newtonian gravity model of celestial motions around a gravity center".

As I wrote:
Correct. The only thing we can do, is to examen the very basics of what we can observe and assume these basical conditions also goes for what we cannot observe.

This of course demands getting it all right before beginning to add "all kinds of dark this and that" into the wrong interpretations. As with the contradicted "celestial universal laws".
Life makes senses and who could doubt it, if you have no doubt about it. - "Grooks" by Piet Hein - My fellow Danish countryman and also a Natural Philosopher
Native
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:42 am

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby viscount aero » Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:12 am

robheus wrote:
Going back in time, the observable universe shrinks down to a tiny patch. But there is nothing to forbid us to think, an it is even assumed that that tiny patch itself was part of an infinite (or very large) space, but which regions expanded in parts of the universe far outside of our observational horizon.


That paragraph is not understandable. Restate what you mean. "Which regions expanded in parts of the universe..." is nonsensical.


robheus wrote:So a correct understanding of the expansion of space is to think of space as a rubber sheet. Draw a little circle on it to mark the space that we can observe, and think of expansion of (3D space, pictured as a 2D rubber sheet) as the expansion of that rubber sheet in all (2d) directions.


Yes 7th grade science teaches that since 30 years ago. Everyone here knows about the "rubber sheet." Are you a seventh grade teacher?
User avatar
viscount aero
 
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California

Re: The Insoluble and Illogical Dark Matter Paradox

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:46 pm

I wouldn't bet on that!

So the discussion has become a bet?
Talking to you, is like talking to someone who thinks that the earth is flat.
If you just looked at the information that was already available, you would see that the
cosmic background radiation is failed in many ways.
A. It correlates with water.
B. Its data is made up by substracting received signals and not by adding them.
It is like recording a sound far away and straight forward in stereo.
If you substract left and right, you remove what you are trying to hear far away.
Instead if you add them, your signal gets better.
What these "scientists" did was substract the signals.
How on earth!!!
C. If we look at the real signals, and not the presented picture. We can see that I am right,
and that the presented picture just shows a invalid picture.
D. The theory. The universe is supposed to expand. Even faster than light. How can that ever bounce back
a signal. LMAO.

They are not.

Yes they are!
I am trying to get to your level of intelligence here...
You see i added a exclamation mark. Now you need to add 2.

It seems you don't understand the equations.
Well many people don't.
What Einstein did was a simple combination of rules, and putting them in one equation.
Did you know the Lambda was just added, but could be removed as well?
One can add and remove much more..
That is how flexible the equation is.

Because the equation creates many singularities, like black holes, it simply means it is
NOT COMPLETE. And any equation that is not complete, can not make predictions about
anything, it is just an estimation. And an estimation is automatically INVALID when it is near the singularities. Even if black holes would exist, it is still invalid. That is why Hawkins talks about Hawkin radiation, and other scientists about string-theory. Because the basis is invalid.

And even the estimation still it is wrong, because of the bending...

The bending is gravitational, and DO match the einstein's equations!

No, according to measurements they ONLY match the very flexible equations, near the corona.
So essentially they are WRONG.
See my discussion about relativity in this subforum. You probably missed it, like so much already.
But first read the many links that SOLAR added, to similar discussions, otherwise he might get mad!


... the GR, which ISN'T complete).

Indeed.


The BB theory only states that the universe was hotter, denser and smaller in the past, ....

That is what I meant.
And from there we build our theories of development of stars.
If these stars developed differently, we can assume that the BB theory did not have the properties
that we assumed it had.

But BB theory is generally thought to be correct. Unless someone comes up with a better model that explains all observations, we are stuck with the BB theory.

It is like saying we are stuck with the flat earth theory, because earth is not round, but earth is "curved".

2) The big bang starts with a singularity


Nope. Where does it say that?

"From nothing, the big bang came into being and suddenly there was light!"
That is my interpretation of the big bang. A singularity.

Sure galaxies are old.

Sadly you did not calculate it.
It is pretty easy.

Further, I find that you are not really common with the maths behind the GR theory.
It would be a nice discussion to have.

I suggest you learn a bit more about the Electric Universe.
It is clear that you have not seen the videos about the CBR,
Redshift, General relativity, etc..
While I think you are smart, if you want to discuss these things,
it would be better to start with the things that matter.

This thread is about Dark Matter.
Dark Matter is an invisible substance that can not be found anywhere, but
that is needed to explain the structures of the galaxies.
That is a theory, for which there is no support.
But there is the EU theory, that explains the structures of galaxies with
known physical laws!
So we don't need dark matter.
So this thread is finished!

From the EU theory, we can also see that the GR likely wrong and based
on wrong assumptions. If we test the GR in accurate circumstances, we
can see that the GR fails. And we can see that the places where GR is
thought to be active, simple electromagnetic phenomena are also good explanations.

So the GR seems wrong.
(which is no surprise, regarding the mathematical structure)

We already saw that we did not need dark matter.
Then how does this relate to the big bang?
Dark matter is needed to build structures in a short enough time, because gravity alone is not
enough to get the job done. So the big bang which defines an expansion rate, and the gravity,
can not produce the galaxies as observed. And that means the big bang is wrong somehow!

Surely the big bang is sooo flexible that we can just change it to a version that might work again.
Just like that we can hold on to a flat earth, by bending a flat earth in space and time towards a sphere.

But at a certain time you have to let go..
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest