The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

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.
ForumModerator
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2013 2:59 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by ForumModerator » Tue Dec 20, 2022 4:53 pm

I agree with Peratt on this one point. Not on much else, though! And practically every science forum and comment section dealing with real science seems to be infested with EUists pushing their impossible nonsense. If they dismiss real science, why are they on those forums/ comment sections?
My bold in the above quote.

The purpose of this forum is to acquaint the public with the EU as well as to have open minded discussions and the honest exchange of ideas.
One of the forum rules is to treat all with respect. The Thunderbolts Project is the host of this forum, and yet you come here to our house and assert that we are crackpots and a cult. Obviously, these are not the conditions that are conducive to an honest open minded exchange of ideas.

It appears to me, that your purpose for being here is nothing more than to be a troll.

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by Maol » Tue Dec 20, 2022 7:58 pm

To Whom it may concern:

Instead of calling alternate theories "nonsense" and using other terms implying less than respect for each other, why can't you use words that don't carry pejorative connotations? I think this subject can be discussed without a hint of ad hominem if everyone agrees to maintain the dialog in a realm of polite discourse.

You gentlemen are so engrossed in hearing naught but the voices in your own heads you are ignoring the fact that there is an audience who can learn from the dialog, but perceive reading it to be repugnant because of the disrespect shown in the text.

mcfc16
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:52 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by mcfc16 » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:18 pm

jacmac wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 4:31 pm
mcfc16, your requirement of a peer reviewed published article to even enter this discussion speaks for itself.
Yes, that is how real scientists do things.
The peer reviewers and authors just listen and speak to each other.
Oh, they most certainly do!
Many years ago, before the EU even existed, I did not believe in the big bang. It is complete nonsense.
If gravity is the primary cause of all that we see in the universe how did gravity fail in such a large way and allow the big bang to happen ?
O, never mind, don't even read this. I'm not peer reviewed.
Jack
It might not make sense to you, but all the evidence supports it. All other models fail.

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by Maol » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:35 pm

mcfc16 wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:18 pm It might not make sense to you, but all the evidence supports it. All other models fail.
"Models" are, by their very existence, self-fulling prophecy, no more, no less.

mcfc16
Posts: 44
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2022 3:52 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by mcfc16 » Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:47 pm

Maol wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:35 pm
mcfc16 wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:18 pm It might not make sense to you, but all the evidence supports it. All other models fail.
"Models" are, by their very existence, self-fulling prophecy, no more, no less.
No, the evidence literally supports it. Evidence that was predicted if the model was correct. We didn't invent the CMB just because it was predicted! Unless you think the whole of science is some giant conspiracy?

Maol
Posts: 467
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:40 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by Maol » Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:28 pm

mcfc16 wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:47 pm
Maol wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:35 pm
mcfc16 wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 8:18 pm It might not make sense to you, but all the evidence supports it. All other models fail.
"Models" are, by their very existence, self-fulling prophecy, no more, no less.
No, the evidence literally supports it. Evidence that was predicted if the model was correct. We didn't invent the CMB just because it was predicted! Unless you think the whole of science is some giant conspiracy?
I'm getting mixed up. How did CMB enter this? I though it was a discussion about the existence of Dark Matter.

DM was invented as a theory to justify an observation of "gravitational" behavior of actual matter that requires "missing matter" to balance the forces presumed in play, and has, so far, no actual physical evidence of any actual Dark Matter.

This is like witnessing a building topple in a wind without being close enough to see the sink hole it fell into.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by BeAChooser » Wed Dec 21, 2022 6:36 pm

Gee ... wish I'd noticed this in time to post it to mcfc16. But it should get this thread back on track now that he's gone.

It turns out that Eric Lerner and his crew at LPPfusion had something to say at the end of November regarding a study of the GAIA data that I reported yesterday (https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/ph ... ?f=3&t=915 ). Here ...

https://www.lppfusion.com/plasma-filame ... er-galaxy/
Plasma Filaments, Not Dark Matter, Rule the Outer Galaxy

November 30, 2022 
Focus Fusion

The hypothesis of the mysterious (and wholly non-existent) Dark Matter has been dealt another heavy blow by new analysis of the rotation of stars in our own Milky Way galaxy. The data in the analysis, collected by the GAIA mapping satellite, show that dark matter is not needed to explain the galaxy’s rotation velocity. ... snip ...

... snip ... It has long been known that in [rotation] curves, velocity rises to a plateau that extends far from galactic centers. For gravitating disks like the spirals, whose mass is concentrated towards the center, the velocity curves should decrease, not rise or plateau. So theoretical astrophysicists have long argued that only a mysterious dark matter, in a large halo surrounding the visible galaxy, can account for this flat, or even rising  velocity trend, since the larger the velocity at a given radius, the larger the gravitating mass inside that radius. This phenomenon has been observed in our own galaxy, the Milky Way – see the orange line in Fig. 4 [BAC - visit linked article to see it].

These observations were made by measuring the Doppler shifts of radio-frequency emission from gas or plasma in our galaxy and other galaxies. The radio radiation can be observed out to large distances from the galactic centers, where the stars were too few and faint to observe. But as early as 25 years ago, researchers began to measure the velocities of stars in the outer reaches of our own galaxy, where stars can be observed to large radii due to our closeness to them. They found that the stars were moving a lot slower than the gas. Since gravity affects all matter equally, that meant the high gas velocities could not be due to gravity alone. Other researchers, starting with Hannes Alfven, had pointed out that magnetic fields could be confining the plasmas in huge filaments, accounting for their high velocities with no need for dark matter.

Now that hypothesis has been dramatically confirmed with the release of the new analyses (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.05668.pdf). Contained in a paper by H.F. Wang(Centro Research Enrico Fermi, Rome) , Z. Chrobakova, (Comenius University, Bratislava), M. Lopez-Corredoira (Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, Tenerife) and F. Sylos-Labini (Centro Research Enrico Fermi, Rome), the analysis uses velocities from almost one billion stars in the galaxy (about 1% of ALL stars in the galaxy). For each star, the GAIA satellite has been able to measure its radial velocity from Doppler shifts, its velocity in the plane of the sky from ultraprecision location measurements, and its distance. ... snip ...

From this enormous mass of data, the researchers derived the rotation curve for stars in our galaxy – the blue curve in figure 4. Unlike the well-known rotation curve from gas, the stellar rotation curve actually decreases with increasing radius, just as would be expected without any dark matter.  The stellar curve diverges increasingly from the gas curve, so that at the largest radii, the stellar rotation  velocities are almost 30% less than the gas velocities. The gas – really plasma – is flowing past the stars at a zippy 70 km/s. This proves that the plasma velocity measurements can’t reflect gravitational fields alone and must involve magnetic confinement as well.

Since we have no reason to believe that there is anything peculiar about our Milky Way galaxy, this new analysis strongly implies that the radio-frequency-based rotation curves for all other galaxies also must involve magnetic confinement as well as gravitational confinement.
Wow! It's pretty hard to refute that, I'd say. Wish Lerner would make a video about this discovery all by itself, uncluttered by anything else, then shove that in the face of the *science communicators*. But there's more ...
In a follow-up paper still under preparation, the researchers use the new rotation velocity curve to calculate that the actual mass of the Milky Way is 160 billion times the mass of our Sun. This is only twice as much as the visible mass in stars. The rest is likely contained in the remnants of burnt-out stars, such as white dwarfs and neutron stars, and in dense cold gas that is too dim to observe. There is no need for dark matter, and no room for it either!
Can't wait to see the researchers second paper! Maybe Lerner is waiting till it comes out before making that video. :D

jacmac
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by jacmac » Thu Dec 22, 2022 3:45 pm

The gas – really plasma – is flowing past the stars at a zippy 70 km/s.
The authors of the above paper, in the second from last paragraph, do use the correct term for the PLASMA.

I am going to try to comment, wherever possible and appropriate, in response to articles about space
when the term "HOT GAS" is used, when "PLASMA" is the proper name to use.
This could be a way to influence the mainstream without directly attacking the standard model.
Jack

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by BeAChooser » Mon Jan 09, 2023 4:08 pm

https://news.utexas.edu/2023/01/05/jame ... -universe/
James Webb Telescope Reveals Milky Way-like Galaxies in Young Universe

New images from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) reveal for the first time galaxies with stellar bars — elongated features of stars stretching from the centers of galaxies into their outer disks — at a time when the universe was a mere 25% of its present age.

... snip ...

And the very existence of these early bars challenges theoretical models as they need to get the galaxy physics right in order to predict the correct abundance of bars.
Several of these galaxies are supposedly over 11 billion years old. That might be a problem because mainstream proponents have claimed that barred spirals are a sign of "maturity". In fact, Wikipedia states (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barred_spiral_galaxy) that "The oscillating evolutionary cycle from spiral galaxy to barred spiral galaxy is thought to take on the average about two billion years."

The study team indicates they will now revise (they mean, tweak) their models to fit the data (at least until the next surprise). :roll:

It's worth noting that barred spirals were a natural result in Anthony Peratt's modeling of interacting plasma filaments. In fact, as he noted in his IEEE Transactions of Plasma Science, Vol. PS-14, No. 6, December 1986 article, "Evolution of the Plasm aUniverse: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies", his model produced elliptical, peculiar, and barred and normal spiral galaxies. He explained the bars thus ... "Whether a normal spiral (S) galaxy or a barred spiral (SB) galaxy forms out of the plasma interaction depends primarily on the profile or cross section of the current-carrying filaments, its density distribution, and strength of the azimuthal magnetic fields. Bars form when the interacting plasma regions are sharply divided in plasma density, while normal spirals tend to form when the intergalactic plasma supporting the current-conducting filaments is more homogeneous overall." I doubt ANY of the study authors have even heard of Anthony Peratt and his work. Such is the sad state of mainstream, gnome believing astrophysics.

Cargo
Posts: 700
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by Cargo » Sat Jan 14, 2023 1:50 am

interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sat Jan 14, 2023 4:07 am

Thanks. This is a key statement …
“We're not surprised to see disk galaxies,” Kartaltepe clarifies. “I think the surprise is to see so many of them. . . . We're really not seeing the earliest stages of galaxy formation yet.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by BeAChooser » Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:54 pm

Here’s another mainstream media science *communicator* keeping hope alive …

https://www.quantamagazine.org/standard ... -20230120/
Standard Model of Cosmology Survives a Telescope’s Surprising Finds

Reports that the James Webb Space Telescope killed the reigning cosmological model turn out to have been exaggerated.

By Rebecca Boyle

… snip …

The earliest of those confirmed galaxies shed its light 330 million years after the Big Bang, making it the new record-holder for the earliest known structure in the universe.
Sorry, Rebecca, but the lastest JWST results (https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... ?f=3&t=932) indicate the record holding galaxy is now just 200 million years after the Big Bang. Yes, it hasn’t been confirmed yet, but like the others I bet it will. Then what? Because the galaxy is already well developed suggesting, like one of the authors said, that “This tells us that we don't yet know when the earliest galaxy structures formed. We’re not yet seeing the very first galaxies with disks.” How early do galaxies have to form before you admit there’s a serious problem?
Astronomers began asking whether the profusion of early big things defies the current understanding of the cosmos. Some researchers and media outlets claimed that the telescope’s observations were breaking the standard model of cosmology — a well-tested set of equations called the lambda cold dark matter, or ΛCDM, model — thrillingly pointing to new cosmic ingredients or governing laws. It has since become clear, however, that the ΛCDM model is resilient. Instead of forcing researchers to rewrite the rules of cosmology, the JWST findings have astronomers rethinking how galaxies are made, especially in the cosmic beginning. The telescope has not yet broken cosmology, but that doesn’t mean the case of the too-early galaxies will turn out to be anything but epochal.
Notice how Rebecca doesn’t provide any detail about why that’s now “clear”? Instead she goes on to regurgitate the origin story the gnomers love so much … that “most of the material that flew apart after the Big Bang is made of something we can’t see, called dark matter.” What a shame they can’t find it! But somehow, dark matter (and dark energy) will be the glue that keeps ΛCDM alive.

I love this ridiculous claim …
One problem is that ΛCDM’s predictions aren’t always clear-cut. While dark matter and dark energy are simple, visible matter has complex interactions and behaviors, and nobody knows exactly what went down in the first years after the Big Bang; those frenetic early times must be approximated in computer simulations.
DM and DE are “simple”? LOL! Yes, visible matter does have complex interactions and behaviors, PRIMARILY because 99.99% of it (the plasma) is affected by electromagnetism and electric currents … something which the mainstream continues to generally ignore. Indeed, your article doesn't mention electromagnetism or electric current at all. And only mentions plasma as being around in the first million years or so. Q.E.D.
Brant Robertson, a JADES astronomer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, says the findings show that the early universe changed rapidly in its first billion years, with galaxies evolving 10 times quicker than they do today.
Well that's rather unexpected, isn't it? And how to explain that? MORE GNOMES?
One key assumption is that stars always form within a certain statistical range of masses, called the initial mass function (IMF). This IMF parameter is crucial for gleaning a galaxy’s mass from measurements of its brightness, because hot, blue, heavy stars produce more light, while the majority of a galaxy’s mass is typically locked up in cool, red, small stars.

But it’s possible that the IMF was different in the early universe. If so, JWST’s early galaxies might not be as heavy as their brightness suggests; they might be bright but light. This possibility causes headaches, because changing this basic input to the ΛCDM model could give you almost any answer you want. Lovell says some astronomers consider fiddling with the IMF “the domain of the wicked.”

… snip …

Over the course of the fall, many experts came to suspect that tweaks to the IMF and other factors could be enough to square the very ancient galaxies lighting upon JWST’s instruments with ΛCDM.
At least they admit that what they’re doing is *tweaking* their model. But like it was admitted above, turning all the knobs in the model (tweaking) can give you “almost any answer you want”. Is that science? These people seem like witch doctors … poking sticks at things they don’t understand (and never will as long as they continue to ignore electromagnetic effects on plasma) and calling on *spirits* to explain things.
In that case, she said, “what we learn is: How fast can [dark matter] halos collect the gas?”
Spirits like dark matter. What a shame they can’t prove it exists.

But still they use them ...
Somerville also studies the possibility that black holes interfered with the baby cosmos. Astronomers have noticed a few glowing supermassive black holes at a redshift of 6 or 7, about a billion years after the Big Bang. It is hard to conceive of how, by that time, stars could have formed, died and then collapsed into black holes that ate everything surrounding them and began spewing radiation.

But if there are black holes inside the putative early galaxies, that could explain why the galaxies seem so bright, even if they’re not actually very massive, Somerville said.
And that's called tweaking the model with a gnome. It’s necessary, because like that other black hole *expert*, Allison the Big Bang happened Kirkpatrick, said ... “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong”?

Next, Rebecca reports on the tweaking of the many computer simulations (basically, computer programs with lots of knobs they don’t really understand). Apparently, an astronomer named Benjamin Keller managed to make the simulations produce early galaxies like they were finding. So ΛCDM is safe. :roll:

Then as an aside Rebecca mentions that “the universe currently seems to be expanding faster than ΛCDM predicts for a 13.8-billion-year-old universe”. But she hand waves that away by saying “Cosmologists have plenty of possible explanations. Perhaps, some cosmologists speculate, the density of the dark energy that’s accelerating the expansion of the universe is not constant, as in ΛCDM, but changes over time.” In fact, she suggests that “Changing the expansion history of the universe might not only resolve the Hubble tension but also revise calculations of the age of the universe at a given redshift. JWST might be seeing an early galaxy as it appeared, say, 500 million years after the Big Bang rather than 300 million.” So ΛCDM is safe.

You see folks, it’s pretty obvious. ΛCDM is simply to big to be allowed to fail. Too many jobs and too many comfortable lives depend on it. So by hook or crook, these folks are going to come up with a way to save it. Even if they have to ignore the obvious and invent a few new gnomes. Even if they have to avoid honest debate with the plasma cosmology community ... Lerner's case being the latest example.

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by crawler » Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm

The universe is infinite & eternal.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Marioantonio
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:53 am

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by Marioantonio » Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:20 pm

crawler wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm The universe is infinite & eternal.
People in the EU don’t like the term infinite.

Can we just say without beginning or end? Ageless?

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Unread post by crawler » Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:02 pm

Marioantonio wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:20 pm
crawler wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm The universe is infinite & eternal.
People in the EU don’t like the term infinite.
Can we just say without beginning or end? Ageless?
Hmmm -- without beginning or end dimension wize -- ok (ie infinite)(ie infinite up n down n across)(ie in 3 dimensions).
And without beginning or end time wize -- ok (ie eternal)(eternal going back in time & eternal going forward in time).

One problem is that BBers might agree re infinite dimension wize -- koz i think that according to some BB theory if u travel in what u think is a straight line then u come back to where u started.

And another problem is that many of us don believe that there is such a thing as time -- time is an illusion (me)(Einstein)(others) -- hence the concept of eternal might be problematic.

Ageless. Hmmmm -- no, i dont agree -- i think that everything has an age, even if only an instant -- i think that ageless is a term used praps by theater critics etc not science.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests