Electric Universe: A Redshift Explanation

[orrery]

Just picked up this book called Big Bang Blasted by Lyndon Ashmore that shows what could be adopted as an Electric Universe explanation for the Redshift.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/141963 ... PDKIKX0DER

Is the Universe really expanding? When the Big Bang Theory was first conceived it looked good - but since then, result after result has gone against the theory. Instead of rejecting the model, as we are told 'real Science' should do, mainstream scientists have continued to invent patch after patch in a bid to save it - but in doing so, the theory has lost its experimental support.

What the author has done here is to go back to the beginning and start again. He follows the history of the Big Bang and the characters involved - explaining at every step how it was done.

He then introduces 'Ashmore's Paradox' and shows that after all these years of searching for the Hubble constant, all they ended up with was something any schoolchild could have found by recalling three very common physical constants from their calculator memory!

Lyndon explains that redshift - originally thought to show that the Universe is expanding, is just an effect caused by photons travelling through space and losing energy to electrons. From this, he goes on to explain the CMB and other observations normally associated with an expanding Universe.

I am curious if this book / author has been adopted by the Electric Universe proponents

[Sparky]

Just picked up this book called Big Bang Blasted by Lyndon Ashmore that shows what could be adopted as an Electric Universe explanation for the Redshift.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/141963 ... PDKIKX0DER

Is the Universe really expanding? When the Big Bang Theory was first conceived it looked good - but since then, result after result has gone against the theory. Instead of rejecting the model, as we are told 'real Science' should do, mainstream scientists have continued to invent patch after patch in a bid to save it - but in doing so, the theory has lost its experimental support.

What the author has done here is to go back to the beginning and start again. He follows the history of the Big Bang and the characters involved - explaining at every step how it was done.

He then introduces 'Ashmore's Paradox' and shows that after all these years of searching for the Hubble constant, all they ended up with was something any schoolchild could have found by recalling three very common physical constants from their calculator memory!

Lyndon explains that redshift - originally thought to show that the Universe is expanding, is just an effect caused by photons travelling through space and losing energy to electrons. From this, he goes on to explain the CMB and other observations normally associated with an expanding Universe.

I am curious if this book / author has been adopted by the Electric Universe proponents

Could you list the falsifying results?...Nice to see some honesty in BB circle.

[ElectricGuy]

I have long read about the Big Bang and it seems to be so widely accepted. I find it hard to imagine there are not more credible theories out there for it's explanation like possibly Electric Universe theories. As history has shown, a lot of widely accepted theories today will be proven from from truth in the future. the big bang could be one of them.

[Sparky]

In the early 1990s, we learned that the average redshift for galaxies of a given brightness differs on opposite sides of the sky. The Big Bang interprets this as the existence of a puzzling group flow of galaxies relative to the microwave radiation on scales of at least 130 Mpc. Earlier, the existence of this flow led to the hypothesis of a "Great Attractor" pulling all these galaxies in its direction. But in newer studies, no backside infall was found on the other side of the hypothetical feature. Instead, there is streaming on both sides of us out to 60-70 Mpc in a consistent direction relative to the microwave "background". The only Big Bang alternative to the apparent result of large-scale streaming of galaxies is that the microwave radiation is in motion relative to us. Either way, this result is trouble for the Big Bang.

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

Although this site is unaware that redshift=distance has been falsified, they bring up a good point, using standard models' criteria, that questions BB. There is quite a large list of BB problems. They point out,

The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory.

Also of note:

Of course, the literature also contains the occasional review paper in support of the Big Bang. But these generally don’t count any of the prediction failures or surprises as theory failures as long as some ad hoc theory might explain them. And the “prediction successes” in almost every case do not distinguish the Big Bang from any of the four leading competitor models: Quasi-Steady-State , Plasma Cosmology , Meta Model , and Variable-Mass Cosmology .
For the most part, these four alternative cosmologies are ignored by astronomers.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors.