Proof of the Big Bang

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.
JoeB
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:44 pm

Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by JoeB » Mon Feb 20, 2023 11:18 pm

I looked up what evidence there is for the big bang and was told:

1) Galaxies further away are more red shifted
2) The Cosmic Microwave Background was predicted
3) Some chemical elements were created soon after the Big Bang. Elements like hydrogen and helium. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element was made in the early universe. When astronomers look at very old galaxies and stars, the amount of each chemical they see agrees with the Big Bang theory. 3-B) the chemical make-up of new stars is very different from stars which existed soon after the Big Bang.

4) we can see that very old galaxies are very different from newer galaxies. This shows the Universe has changed.

Does the electric universe have answers to all four of these?

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

Re: Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by jacmac » Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:27 am

These are my answers. Others here can do better, I'm sure.

1. Halton ARP.
2. Steady state theorists predicted it better their first time.
Big Bang got it wrong then changed their numbers.
3. I don't know much about element predictions, but old and new galaxies based on your redshift are wrong.
See: 1. Halton Arp.
4 See: 1. Halton Arp.

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

Re: Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by BeAChooser » Wed Feb 22, 2023 1:33 am

JoeB wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 11:18 pm Does the electric universe have answers to all four of these?
I'll let others address your questions..

Because I have some questions of my own that I’m STILL waiting the mainstream to address.

Does the mainstream have an explanation (that doesn't involve gnomes) for ...

1) the helically wound pairs of plasma filaments that are turning up everywhere we look?

2) for the rotation curves of galaxies?

3) the formation of magnetic fields?

4) and the jets coming from Herbig Haro objects?

And don't forget these questions ...

5) why did the mainstream take 60 years to arrive at the explanation that Alfven and Arrehnius came up with for how the distribution of angular momentum in the solar system came to be?

6) why do quasars seem to be associated with active galaxies and aligned with respect to them to a higher degree than the mainstream model would predict?

7) and why are the mainstream’s predictions so utterly wrong regarding the number of spirals in the very early universe and when they began to form?

Because Plasma Cosmologists offered logical explanations for all those things decades and decades ago and the mainstream just ignored them.

And one last question for now …

8) what will it take for mainstream astrophysicists to give up on the dark matter gnome after 50 years of looking at the cost of billions and billions of dollars with NOTHING to show for it? A guaranteed income for the rest of their lives?

JoeB
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:44 pm

Re: Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by JoeB » Thu Feb 23, 2023 1:16 am

jacmac wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 6:27 am These are my answers. Others here can do better, I'm sure.

1. Halton ARP.
2. Steady state theorists predicted it better their first time.
Big Bang got it wrong then changed their numbers.
3. I don't know much about element predictions, but old and new galaxies based on your redshift are wrong.
See: 1. Halton Arp.
4 See: 1. Halton Arp.
I've been looking at some Halton Arp. I understand that quasars are red shifted for some other reason, but people are telling me that galaxies further away are redder (spell check says it's redder) shifted. Is that true?

Thanks for the help in suggesting Halton Arp..

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by nick c » Thu Feb 23, 2023 2:46 am

..but people are telling me that galaxies further away are redder (spell check says it's redder) shifted. Is that true?
How do they determine that the galaxies are FURTHER away? That is determined by their red shift. So their higher red shift proves that further away galaxies have a high red shift. That is circular reasoning.

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

Re: Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by jacmac » Thu Feb 23, 2023 3:19 pm

I'm in full agreement with Nick.
The Big Bang is the majority opinion currently but there are many others
with credentials and standing in astronomy and astrophysics in addition to H. Arp.
They generally believe in a Steady State universe.
A few are:
Margaret Burbidge
Geoffrey Burbidge
Fred Hoyle

In todays world of astronomy direct evidence that the Big Bang is wrong is ignored
primarily because the BB believers require a complete theory to explain the universe
to replace their theory. That is not real science; It is hiding behind a wall of being the Standard Model.

Read The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner Published in 1991.
There are several current video's on U-Tube he has made.
Plasma Cosmology is another source of non Big Bang research.

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by jackokie » Fri Feb 24, 2023 1:40 am

jacmac said:
In todays world of astronomy direct evidence that the Big Bang is wrong is ignored
primarily because the BB believers require a complete theory to explain the universe
to replace their theory. That is not real science; It is hiding behind a wall of being the Standard Model.
This is a key point in understanding the sophistry of the BB defenders: Their argument makes no sense; one starts developing a new theory because the current theory is shown to be deficient. You might consider it Scientific Method 101.

What strange times we live in.
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by nick c » Fri Feb 24, 2023 5:53 pm

jackokie wrote:This is a key point in understanding the sophistry of the BB defenders: Their argument makes no sense; one starts developing a new theory because the current theory is shown to be deficient. You might consider it Scientific Method 101.

What strange times we live in.
Times change, yet many things remain the same. The Copernican theory was rejected for more than a century before it was accepted and once accepted observations were made which "proved" the theory to be correct. Yet, looking back on those observations it has been established that they proved nothing. In fact the observations that they had used to verify the Copernican theory were just plain wrong.

from an article by Charles Ginenthal, "Scientific Dating Methods In Ruins" ....
Ginenthal wrote:In 1669, the distinguished English physicist Robert Hooke, made a wonderful discovery. He obtained the long sought proof of Copernicus' heliocentric theory of the solar system by demonstrating stellar parallax - a perceived difference in [the] star's position due the Earth's motion around the Sun. One of the first to use a telescope for this purpose, Hooke observed the star Gamma Draconis and soon reported to the Royal Society that he had found what he was looking for: the star had a parallax of almost [30] seconds of arc. Here at last was impeccable proof of the Copernican theory.....
....A few years later, England's first Astronomer Royal, the brilliant observer, John Flamsteed, reported that the Pole Star had a parallax of at least [40] seconds.

Hooke and Flamsteed, outstanding scientists of their day, are leading lights in the history of science. But they fell victim to an effect that, to this day, has continued to trap...scientists in its treacherous coils. It is the phenomenon of experimeter expectancy, or, seeing what you want to see. There is indeed, a stellar parallax, but because of the vast distances of stars from Earth, the parallax is extremely small - about [1] second of arc. It cannot be detected by the relatively crude telescopes used by Hooke and Flamsteed.

Self deception is a problem of pervassive importance in science.
The same processes take place today, in that scientists interpret data in the context of their preconceived theoretical framework.

Michael Mozina
Posts: 2295
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm

Re: Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by Michael Mozina » Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:41 pm

JoeB wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 11:18 pm I looked up what evidence there is for the big bang and was told:

1) Galaxies further away are more red shifted
Technically EU/PC theory can support a "bang" theory, but we tend to typically associate redshift with "plasma redshift" (used to be called tired light theory), rather than expansion.
2) The Cosmic Microwave Background was predicted
Eddington correctly predicted the background temperature of "dust in space" to within 1/2 of one degree without the need for a "bang" at all. He simply estimated the warming (kinetic) effect of starlight on dust.
3) Some chemical elements were created soon after the Big Bang. Elements like hydrogen and helium. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element was made in the early universe. When astronomers look at very old galaxies and stars, the amount of each chemical they see agrees with the Big Bang theory. 3-B) the chemical make-up of new stars is very different from stars which existed soon after the Big Bang.
The elemental makeup of stars (and spacetime) is ultimately an *assumption*, not a measured quantity. The lightest elements like hydrogen and helium are simply more likely to escape the gravity well of Earth compared to heavier elements in EU/PC theory. EU/PC theory predicts H+, He+2 and He+1, in that order in solar wind which is exactly what we observe. They are arranged by they charge/mass ratio.
4) we can see that very old galaxies are very different from newer galaxies. This shows the Universe has changed.
Actually no, that's not what we are seeing. The JWST images show 'mature' and 'massive' galaxies for as far as it can see, pretty much destroying the concept of galaxy evolution over time. This is the Achilles heel of mainstream theory in fact.
Does the electric universe have answers to all four of these?
Yes, and without the need for 95 percent metaphysical nonsense. :)

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by Brigit » Fri Feb 24, 2023 10:19 pm

Here is a short history and list of predicted temperatures of the cosmic microwave background radiation. Note that some of the closest guesstimates of the CMBR resulted from non-Big Bang explanations .



Temperature of Space
Feb 15, 2005
  • "The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) is popularly believed to prove the Big Bang. That proof is spot on—if you allow a big enough spot.

    One of the first predictions was that it would indicate a "temperature of space" of 5 Kelvin (5K). That prediction was revised upward until it reached 50K shortly before the CMBR was discovered. When the discovery measured it to be only 2.7K, the Big Bang proponents claimed it and ignored the size of the spot required to cover the gap.

    They also ignored a long history of other predictions [based on] other theories that required much tinier spots. In 1896, Charles Edouard Guillaume predicted a temperature of 5.6K from heating by starlight. Arthur Eddington refined the calculations in 1926 and predicted a temperature of 3K. Regener predicted 2.8 in 1933.

    The first astronomer to collect observations from which the temperature of space could be calculated was Andrew McKellar. In 1941 he announced a temperature of 2.3K from radiative excitation of certain molecules. But World War II occupied everyone's attention and his paper was ignored.

    George Gamow, credited with the prediction from Big Bang assumptions, estimated 5K in 1948. In the 1950s he raised that estimate to 10K, and by 1961 he was predicting 50K, overlooking McKellar's prior measurement and another measurement of 3K by Tigran Shmaonov in 1955. Meanwhile, in 1954, Finlay-Freundlich predicted 1.9K to 6K on the basis of "tired light" assumptions.

    The discovery of the excess temperature of 3.5 +/- 1K by Penzias and Wilson in 1965 can be claimed as proof of the Big Bang only by applying a cognitive spot that obliterates over half a century of history."
https://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005 ... cetemp.htm
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: CMB Radiation

Unread post by Brigit » Fri Feb 24, 2023 10:56 pm

In 2013, Thunderbolts Project addressed the principle tenets of the Big Bang, and focused in particular on the smoothness of the temperatures observed by WMAP and COBE. An electrical explanation for the microwave background is suggested.

Redshifts and Microwaves
Stephen Smith March 28, 2013
    • Fig 1. https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/wp-con ... age203.gif
      Galaxy NGC 7319. Arrow points to foreground high redshift quasar. Credit: NASA/Hubble Space Telescope Galaxy NGC 7319. Arrow points to foreground high redshift quasar. Credit: NASA/Hubble Space Telescope
      "On October 3, 2003, the Big Bang theory was falsified by direct observation. The galaxy NGC 7319 was measured to have a redshift of z = 0.0225. It is not uncommon for “nearby” galaxies to have redshifts below z = 1. However, a quasar was located in front of NGC 7319’s opaque gas clouds with an observed redshift of z = 2.114."


    "The two principle tenets of the Big Bang theory are that redshift is proportional to distance and that it is an indicator of velocity. The larger an object’s redshift the farther away it is and the faster it is moving away from the observer. Those two ideas provide the backdrop for the commonly held belief that the Universe is expanding."

    Stephen Smith continues,

    "On June 30, 2001, NASA launched the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) on a mission to reexamine some unusual telemetry returned by the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite in 1992. Temperature fluctuations data seemed to suggest that there were regions of lower mass density in the Universe. Since the Big Bang theory does not account for such regions—matter and energy should be evenly distributed—the WMAP survey was sent to verify COBE’s results.

    Electric Universe advocate Wal Thornhill pointed out that neither COBE or WMAP detected “cosmic” radiation. Rather, they both found the natural microwave radiation from “electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the Universe.”

    The Electric Universe theory has an entirely different way of addressing these matters. It does not rely on unseen and undetectable forces whose existence can only be inferred. Electric currents flowing through ionized gas and dust provide the energy for the stars, presenting themselves in straightforward and understandable ways without resorting to esoteric mathematical models.

    Redshifts and microwaves have proven themselves inadequate to explain how the Universe functions."
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

User avatar
Brigit
Posts: 1166
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 8:37 pm

microwave radiation from electric current filaments

Unread post by Brigit » Fri Feb 24, 2023 11:05 pm

What's the electrical background of that background?

In "Nobel Prize for the Big Bang is a Fizzer," Wal Thornhill wrote:
  • If Arp and others are right and the Big Bang is dead, what does the Cosmic Microwave Background signify?

    The simplest answer, from the highly successful field of plasma cosmology, is that it represents the natural microwave radiation from electric current filaments in interstellar plasma local to the Sun. Radio astronomers have mapped the interstellar hydrogen filaments by using longer wavelength receivers. The dense thicket formed by those filaments produces a perfect fog of microwave radiation—as if we were located inside a microwave oven. Instead of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it is the Interstellar Microwave Background. That makes sense of the fact that the CMB is too smooth to account for the lumpiness of galaxies and galactic clusters in the universe. We cannot “see” them through the local microwave fog.


    https://www.holoscience.com/wp/wp-conte ... E-WMAP.jpg
    Fig 1.1 COBE-WMAP
    Here we see the improvement in resolution between COBE and the WMAP project. The pie chart shows the constituents of the universe based on Big Bang cosmology. The most important result from WMAP is the filamentary structure and (red) hot spots in the microwave background. Images courtesy of NASA.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

JoeB
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:44 pm

Re: Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by JoeB » Sun Feb 26, 2023 4:33 pm

Thank you, for the information. That really helped. I was hoping you would come along.

Regarding the below, can anyone tell me if it is true that when they see galaxies that are further away, that they are more red shifted?

Michael Mozina wrote: Fri Feb 24, 2023 6:41 pm

Technically EU/PC theory can support a "bang" theory, but we tend to typically associate redshift with "plasma redshift" (used to be called tired light theory), rather than expansion.

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

Re: Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sun Feb 26, 2023 6:34 pm

JoeB wrote: Sun Feb 26, 2023 4:33 pm can anyone tell me if it is true that when they see galaxies that are further away, that they are more red shifted?
Well, if the plasma in intergalactic space can cause red shift, as the PC/EU believes (and as evidence seems to now suggest) then naturally, galaxies that are further way will be more red shifted. But that doesn't mean that high redshift objects have to be further away. Nor does it mean there has to have been a Big Bang.

JoeB
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:44 pm

Re: Proof of the Big Bang

Unread post by JoeB » Sun Feb 26, 2023 7:47 pm

IDK if I'm stupid but I don't understand. IF something is more red-shifted, doesn't that supposedly mean it is receding faster, according to what they are saying? But when you say that naturally they are more red shifted because it happens in plasma, what does that mean? Plasma moves away faster the further away it is?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests