May 30, 2019
What causes astronomers to think that space is expanding?
“The greatest mistake in my opinion, and the one we continually make, is to let the theory guide the model. After a ridiculously long time it has finally dawned on me that establishment scientists actually proceed on the belief that theories tell you what is true and not true!”
— Halton Arp (March 1927 – December 2013)
Most of the mass of the Milky Way, as well as that of other spiral galaxies, is in the central bulge, so if stars in the arms revolve because of gravity, they would slow down as they got farther from the center. Instead, stars in the Milky Way demonstrate a more-or-less constant velocity. This is known as a “flat rotation curve”, as a recent Picture of the Day pointed out, although astronomers have a difficult time deciding if galaxies are discrete “things” that rotate like solid disks, or if they are a collection of stars that revolve.
Recently, astronomers using the European Space Agency’s XMM-Newton space telescope reported that nearby galaxies appear to contain three times less luminous matter than expected, while the Milky Way contains less than half of what was expected. Jiangtao Li of the University of Michigan said:
“This has long been a mystery, and scientists have spent a lot of effort searching for this missing matter.
Why is it not in galaxies — or is it there, but we are just not seeing it? If it’s not there, where is it? It is important we solve this puzzle, as it is one of the most uncertain parts of our models of both the early Universe and of how galaxies form.”
The Milky Way rotates much faster than visible matter alone can account for. This is a mystery that contradicts conventional theories about galaxy evolution. If astronomy were actually “science” and not speculation, “contradict” would mean “falsify”, and they would start over. They would consider other assumptions. That would throw a spanner in the works, however, undermining textbooks, discrediting published papers, and jeopardizing careers.
One alternative that is different from the gravity model is Dr. Anthony Peratt’s laboratory investigations. He demonstrated interacting Birkeland currents that rotate around each other at constant velocities, with plasma trails morphing into spiral “arms”. Plasma accumulated between the arms into a “bulge” that eventually swallowed the currents. At the grand scale, could this be the motive force for galactic rotation?
In 1998, Saul Perlmutter and Adam Riess of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Brian Schmidt from the Australian National University projects independently discovered what was later called “dark energy”, an indication that the expansion of the Universe was accelerating. Since it is based in Big Bang theory, the expansion of the Universe is challenged by Electric Universe concepts.
Electric Universe theory predicts that more stars will occur where there are greater flows of electric charge, which could also initiate a greater number of stellar explosions with anomalous luminosities and high redshifts. That would make highly charged, nearby objects undergoing electrical discharges look like remote, high redshift supernovae that are too bright for their distances. One can imagine the theoretical problems that would result from that misinterpretation.
Cosmologists made their first mistake when they ignored electricity as an active force. X-rays from ion excitation, a range of energy curves, and (sometimes) gamma-rays are properties of lightning bolts. Computer simulations demonstrate that plasma phenomena are scalable over several orders of magnitude.
“All of the ‘dark’ things in astronomy are artifacts of a crackpot cosmology. The ‘dark energy’ model of the universe demands that eventually all of the stars will disappear and there will be eternal darkness. In the words of Brian Schmidt, ‘The future for the universe appears very bleak.’ He confirms my portrayal of big bang cosmology as ‘hope less’.” — Wal Thornhill
Theories provide context for observations.
Recent data from the twin Voyager spacecraft reveals that the Interstellar Medium surrounding the Solar System is a diffuse region of charged particles, primarily ionized hydrogen, with a density of about one atom per cubic centimeter. However, between galaxies, astrophysicists estimate that there is only one atom per ten cubic meters. Those particles are said to be the remains of matter left over from the Big Bang that did not contract into galaxies, and are supposed to make up the cosmic web in which all galaxies are embedded.
According to a recent press release, researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy measured “small-scale fluctuations” in the cosmic web, using pairs of quasars that are thought to be over 11 billion light-years away. However, the technique for identifying those fluctuations is ambiguous, involving what appears to be circular reasoning.
As Alberto Rorai, from Cambridge university wrote:
“One of the biggest challenges was developing the mathematical and statistical tools to quantify the tiny differences we measure in this new kind of data.”
Those “tools” are supercomputer models created to simulate how astronomers think the Big Bang explosion evolved into the structures that exist today.
As another team member wrote:
“I was delighted to see that these new measurements agree with the well-established paradigm for how cosmic structures form.”
Conventional theories propose that a few hundred thousand years after the the Big Bang, the Universe was able to synthesize hydrogen atoms out of the primal particles that arose from the initial explosion. Hundreds of millions of years later, those hydrogen atoms consolidated into luminous objects emitting such intense ultraviolet light that they ionized the hydrogen, leaving a vast web of filaments composed of charged particles. How that happened is a mystery to cosmologists.
A “well-established paradigm” means a theory that is taken for granted. When a simulation is constructed that requires hundreds of hours to run on a supercomputer, there is an open question about the idea. Since consensus opinions require such complex algorithms, and the models have to be “tweaked” over and over again in order to come up with something that conforms to presumptions, should that not cast doubt on those presumptions?
It is probable that the Universe is constructed from energetic filaments, but they are most likely electrical in nature. A principal tenet of Electric Universe theory is that electricity flowing through ionized gas, otherwise known as plasma, creates long electromagnetic filaments called Birkeland currents. This idea is simple and conforms to a theory that can be modeled with experiments in the laboratory.
Whenever changes occur in cosmic clouds of gas due to gravity or the influence of electromagnetic fields, regions of charge separation form. Separated charges induce electric fields, initiating electric currents. Electric currents form magnetic fields, confining the charge flow and squeezing it into filaments. Those confined charges increase the magnetic field strength, which squeezes the filaments even tighter. After a short time, Birkeland currents can form z-pinches, creating plasmoids that ignite like electric arcs. Plasma events are scaleable by many orders of magnitude, so filamentation and z-pinch phenomena are fractal in nature: from electrons to superclusters.
Since the idea that electricity flows through the Universe is commonly met with resistance by today’s consensus, electricity’s influence and attributes are unseen. As written previously, “seeing is believing” should probably be stood on its head: “believing is seeing”. When there is no inner context, outer realities remain invisible.