The Dark Universe - Where's The Light?

In the 19th century, scientists were working under the presumption that the universe was stable and, for practical purposes, infinite in all directions. They believed matter moved through a field that gave it form. They called this field an aether.

Then Einstein came along and discovered a way to calculate relativistic mechanics without the need for an aether. Einstein's theory was subsequently backed up by experiments that seemed to show there was no aether of the type scientists had once presumed existed.

At the time Einstein first proposed his theories of bending space and relativity without an aether, he did not believe in a "Big Bang" expanding universe. The Big Bang was actually the brain child of a Catholic priest. It wasn't until Hubble came along and showed that the spectra of distant galaxies seemed to shift toward the red end of the light spectrum in proportion to their brightness that Einstein finally conceded that the universe may actually be the product of a "Big Bang." However, in the decades that followed, a mountain of contradictory evidence has been accumulating that undermines these assumptions.

Today, we are at a point where scientists are claiming over 90% of the universe is made out of matter and energy that we can't see and can't detect. They are claiming that infinitely dense objects exist (something Einstein also disagreed with.) They are claiming that stars the size of asteroids can spin around at near light speed and emit a focused beam of energy that is detectable across galactic distances. They are claiming that stable matter exists in the universe that violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. In fact, I could go on listing absolutely bizarre and unproven claims until I had enough theory to fill an entire book.

All of these bizarre theories are the result of a few fundamental unproven assumptions. These assumptions form the central dogma of modern cosmological theory:

1. On a large scale, space is electrically neutral. Einstein's theory of General Relativity completely ignores anything electrical. It assumes gravity is the sole driving force of the universe.

2. Space and time are capable of "bending." Exactly how space and time accomplish this feat is left completely undefined. I find it interesting that GR is completely predicated on gravity, but scientists have no idea how gravity actually works.

3. All red shifting of galaxy spectra is the product of a Doppler effect, which only leaves "expanding space" as the sole explanation for the observations.

Each one of those points has major problems. Whenever scientists observe data that runs counter to one of the points I just mentioned, they ignore it. Those three pillars of assumption are never questioned, no matter how much contradictory evidence is accumulated that says otherwise. Scientists would rather conjure up new hypothetical forms of matter and energy to explain the data instead of questioning any of those fundamental assumptions.

The latest round of insanity that undermines those points comes from observations of the amount of light we see around us. The Telegraph explains:

The universe is a pretty dark place – but according to astrophysicists it is much too dark.

Scientists have been left scratching their heads after noticing there is a huge deficit of light.

The amount of light in the universe can be measured accurately by studying tendrils of hydrogen which become ionized, or charged, when they encounter ultraviolet light.

The more ionized hydrogen you can spot, the more light should exist.

But, according to a new study in Astrophysical Journal Letters, the hydrogen tendrils suggest there is far more ultraviolet light around than is being emitted by galaxies and quasars.

An astonishing five times too much, in fact, and it is leading astrophysicists to speculate that the photons could be coming from an "exotic new source", or even decaying dark matter.

It means that 80 per cent of light in the universe is effectively missing.

“It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly-lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt light bulbs,” noted Carnegie’s Juna Kollmeier, lead author of the study. “Where is all that light coming from? It’s missing from our census.”

As we can see, they are leaning towards yet another new hypothetical source of matter and energy to explain away contradictory evidence. These new hypothetical forms of matter and energy are only "necessary" because scientists absolutely refuse, under any circumstance, to question the three pillars of dogma that prop up the standard model of cosmology.

A simple explanation for this observation comes, yet again, from Hannes Alfvén. Alfvén was a Nobel prize winning plasma physicist who theorized that space was not electrically neutral, and that electricity played a massive roll in the large scale structure of the universe.

Alfvén proved that when a neutral gas, such as non-ionized hydrogen, met with a field of ionized gas (plasma), the neutral gas would start to ionize. The "critical ionization velocity" is the relative velocity between a neutral gas and a plasma, at which the neutral gas will start to ionize. If more energy is supplied, the velocity of atoms will not exceed the critical ionization velocity until the gas becomes almost fully ionized. This fact of science has been proven repeatedly in laboratory experiments around the world.

This effect is capable of explaining why we see so much ionized hydrogen, yet see so little ultraviolet light. Of course, if this effect is the cause of the ionized hydrogen, this would undermine the first pillar of dogma that I listed. No scientist would dare question this fundamental dogma of cosmology, so this potential explanation is ignored.

Physicist Wal Thornhill writes, "You're right Michael about the critical ionization effect. I'm appalled by the nonsense ideas expressed in the [Telegraph] article. Until cosmology is handed over to plasma experimentalists and Alfvén is listened to there will be no real progress in the subject."

Space is electrified, nothing cannot bend and red shift is not caused by "expanding space." This is just one more piece of evidence, among a massive list of evidence, that undermines the standard model of cosmology.

Here's a tutorial the explains what's actually going on in space:

sorry to inform you but I cannot think of a decent reply as my head just increased in size; maybe double size it is, like a huge balloon full of information - I am afraid it could blow away and I don't want to wake up the neighbors.

I agree that there are many mind - blowing theories that could be completely wrong and some of them probably are.

if anyone wants to read the paper on this rather than the usually inaccurate tabloid coffee time read, one of the papers is here. iopscience.iop.org...

Short vid to consider .

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Very interesting share 1 will remain observant of these theories. @ times I wonder does water feel the same to humans as it does to fish. Or do the fish interpret water different then humans do and so it doesn't feel wet to them (if they even feel it) or do they see/feel water like humans do air? Speaking on perspective evaluations of reality interpreted differently per observer...

Really makes 1 think of that potential exotic source are we blocked from direct observation or just around the corner in universal terms, so cannot see around the corner but the energy from the exotic source is still traveling this way, nice share

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Today, we are at a point where scientists are claiming over 90% of the universe is made out of matter and energy that we can't see and can't detect.

I you close your eyes and I hit you with a [proverbial] baseball bat, would you not be able to detect it?

Now, it's true you'd be in the 'dark' about the exact nature of the object that struck you, but you'd certainly know it was there!

You're probably going to claim next that comets are electric, and don't contain water...



Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with alternative theories, and certainly don't treat current understandings as any sort of dogma, but if everything is electric (which is what you are inferring) why can't we detect it?

a reply to: MarsIsRed

Perhaps a different form more associated with static movements of objects through charged particles from consistent STAR activity. So visualize all the Stars releasing charged particles out there making a mist for explanatory words and as Comets/Asteroids Planets and Other Stars move through it they gain a charge. (how can man CLEARLY interpret/understand this charge w/o being present with the fast moving celestials) to take scientific data?

But think about it SOL emits lots of particles daily as do other Stars (how long has this process occurred?) these "charged" particles are physically bonding to objects in space add speed to the objects sparking friction/static and some form of electric activity is at play.

I think when many here some of us EU theory thinkers discuss electricity out there many assume its the same as EA*RTH based electricity but it may be being interpreted differently by scientist with the EA*RTH documented credentials. The cosmic charged dust attaching to objects and then the existent cosmic dust coming in contact with the moving cosmic objects dust attached allowing static like charge from friction of exterior covered cosmic object and cosmic dust floating/moving out there.

originally posted by: MarsIsRed
Don't get me wrong - I have no problem with alternative theories, and certainly don't treat current understandings as any sort of dogma, but if everything is electric (which is what you are inferring) why can't we detect it?

We can't detect dark matter, yet you seem to have no problem with this.

We CAN detect magnetic fields in space which, according to Maxwell's equations, means electricity MUST be flowing in space to produce them. It is impossible to have a magnetic field without moving electrons. Electrons only move in response to trying to equalize charge. Once an electron is moving, we have an electric current.

Scientists have NO explanations for why we observe large scale magnetic fields around galaxies and galaxy clusters. The so-called "shock injection problem" that tries to explain these fields is ignored. In fact, anything that might suggest electricity is flowing in space plasma (which it must in order for it to remain in a plasma state) is ignored.

Scientists brush these fields off by saying the charge is "frozen in" to the fields. Meaning they think magnetic fields can exist without any electric current being present. This is a violation of conservation laws in physics, yet this is what they claim.

Space is time in the static form. Light within space, as space is always converting back into time (down and inward, from everywhere, towards everywhere, that we label as all the past) is departing the present into the past.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
Whenever scientists observe data that runs counter to one of the points I just mentioned, they ignore it.

That's just not true, or how would you even know that it exists? You're not one of those people who try to use science to show that science is a pack of lies, are you?

Everything is theory, which means that it is all subject to change when new data is found. We experiment, we test, and if something comes up that doesn't fit the theory, we don't immediately chuck the whole thing in the trash. We wait and see. If somebody comes up with a better theory that explains the new data and still incorporates, the old, then the new theory is adopted. Happens all the time. Why? Because science.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Ok.

So where's the lab experiment that proves a new exotic form of matter is responsible for this ionized hydrogen?

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I agree with you.

If the equations are correct, it seems no amount of reasoning can tear them away from it. Yet this seems a faith in math over anything else. Could the Galilean principle that Math is the language of the universe be another unchallenged assumption?

originally posted by: Aphorism
a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

I agree with you.

If the equations are correct, it seems no amount of reasoning can tear them away from it. Yet this seems a faith in math over anything else. Could the Galilean principle that Math is the language of the universe be another unchallenged assumption?

No, I think math is the language of the physical universe. The problem is that scientists completely ignore classical physics in favor of theoretical math. A mathematical theory is only as good as the assumptions it is predicated on. As the old programmer saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out."

GR is predicated on some garbage assumptions, so any math it spits out is going to be wrong in terms of accurately describing reality. The math may be "right", but the theory is wrong.

I'm a big fan of the EU theory. I do think that some of the things they think up should be pure common sense, yet scientists ignore the points just to make up theory after theory that relies on a shaky foundation of theories to protect their dogma. The comet for one should be an obvious indication they went wrong somewhere and should step back and start again.

This is my conspiracy side talking but, I think or have a theory that we got pushed in this non electric direction by institutions or corporations long long ago so we would not realize how much free energy is available all around us and we would be stuck buying power from those that control it. Imagine if we needed no grid and power were free for all.....just like Tesla had dreamed up for us! So many things could be accomplished, we'd all be free to live, travel, study and explore without fighting for resources. I also think that's why ET's won't accept us or help us because if humans started spreading our greed and lust for power would destroy the universe.

originally posted by: AnarchoCapitalist
a reply to: Blue Shift

Ok.

So where's the lab experiment that proves a new exotic form of matter is responsible for this ionized hydrogen?

I can say the same for your beliefs.

Fact is if it's a new theory then no experiment could have been done yet, and no one is saying it's proven .. hence .. theory.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No, you can't say the same about my beliefs.

Here's a review of lab experiments proving the CIV effect.

And here's a paper showing that interstellar neutral hydrogen (HI) emission spectra manifest several families of linewidths whose numerical values appear to be related to the critical ionization velocities (CIVs) of the most abundant interstellar atomic species.

Those two papers are why the resident scientific chuckle-heads haven't shown up in this thread to refute me. I have them by the balls.

a reply to: AnarchoCapitalist

Not what I meant. Where are the laboratory experiments proving the electric comet theory?

So far every time you try to interpret experimental data you fail miserably, like here. Then when I prove you are wrong you refuse to admit it. So I will no longer waste my time doing so.

Join members Signalfire, Jacygirl, Comfortablynumb, and Druid42 this Monday @ 10pm EST as they discuss this topic.

Visit the ATS Live Forum for more information.

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
Short vid to consider .

yeh, nice arguments...

a reply to: KrzYma

Is he right about number 4? He said it's rarely practiced -