joaquie wrote:I've heard people say it's all bullcrap, but others say there is lots of observational evidence for it.
One should ask a fundamental question of the Standard model - what are the observational evidences for it? Are they even in favour of cosmic expansion - and all the oddities defining it?
After some hunting, one will come to realize it's a matter of established interpretation models, not observational evidence, and many historical decissions are still open for discussion. The argumentation is extensive, so I would, in addition to the daily pictures on this site and recommandations by previous posters, recommend two books by astronomer and physiscist Hilton Ratcliffe, namely "The Virtue of Heresy
" and especially the quite recent "The Static Universe - Exploding the Myth of Cosmic Expansion"
There are some serious issues in astrophysics and cosmology today in regards to explaining observations. The questions asked aren't along the lines of "Is the standard model of the Sun [stars/galaxies/formation etc.] correct?", but usually the questions are more like "What is the true nature of dark matter then?", which really isn't a revision of consensus theories. As a paradox, considering the purpose of science, it seems the revisional questions are mainly asked by eager people outside the institutions and even retired/resigned people that once were a part of it. It should be a sign.
Unsure if it was brought up above, but here's a link to some recent and interesting papers related to Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe ("Toward a Real Cosmology in the 21st Century" by Wallace Thornhill is hereby a highlight, in my opinion)
:Recent papers on Plasma Cosmology and the Electric Universe
In brief, the science behind it is related to electric and magnetic fields, and how they are a part of cosmic plasma and affecting large scale structures, galaxies, stars and smaller objects like comets. Observations keep pointing in this direction, while contradicting the standard model, requiring the latter to come up with the absurdest of concepts in order to fight for its survival (and funding). I don't thing all astrophysiscist or cosmologist are aware of this, but I think it is a natural, paradoxal and sad cause of how sciene and empirical methods work, somewhat nudged by the need for funding. However, I've read documentation by solar physiscists that is surprisingly honest about our lack of understanding of the Sun and the need for more missions and extensive data mapping, which is good.
We should hold on to empirical methods, but knowing what to keep and realizing what to discard is an artform by itself, that I feel the Electric Universe is opening a better understanding of.