It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dissidents' View of Cosmology

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 12:58 PM
I will probably get some flak for this, but this has to be said: the accepted model of Cosmology (mostly big bang) is basically flawed, contradicting data is either ignored or incorporated via the use of yet another fudge factor - such as dark energy.


Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

For the record: Only 3 % are now considered 'normal' (visible) matter, the rest is supposedly 'dark matter' ánd 'dark energy'. when will people finally say enough is enough?

Source for 3 % figure

The picture only got worse four years ago when "dark energy" was found to be even more prevalent than dark matter. The cosmic account now pegs dark energy at about 69 percent of the universe, exotic dark matter at 27 percent, mundane dark matter - dim, unseen stars - at 3 percent, and what we actually see at a mere 1 percent.

old post, slightly on topic

posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 03:54 PM
Well, when things change, we come up with new theories, as with
Dark matter and dark energy, just because we have to ad to our
current knowledge, does'nt mean it's wrong.

Plus we have recently gotten proof of dark matter, don't have the
thread or aticle lonk handy, but they exist.

posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 04:39 PM
You should research a book that was co-written about cosmology by a swedish plasma physicist named Calvin Alfens (sp). The book is titled 'The Big Bang Never Happened."

He basically shares the same sentiments as the author of this thread but goes on to discuse his view of the universe from a plasma dynamics experts view. He argues that the universe is way too old to be a product of the big bang. And that electromagnetism is the universe's prime governing force on objects. He explains how the galaxies are formed and how they create a sort of galactic circuitry where each galaxy acts like an alernator with all it's swirling magnetic fields created by it's stars and send out powerful EM fields like filaments from the galaxies axis, and that these fields intertwine creating a sort of cosmic tapestry in which the galaxies and bodies of matter are aligned. He then points out that the galaxys and the universe as a whole are just scaled up versions of microscopic plasma priniples that are demonstrated in the lab everyday.

His book was pretty convincing to me. He even said that scientist would keep making up things like dark matter to keep thier hypothesis' apparently valid.

Plasma dynamics is the youngest field of energy research strangely and so it's possible that it's fruit has not yet been tapped or harvested in regards to figuring out cosmology.
He also goes into depth about his idea for small cold fusion generators.

posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 05:23 PM
Well dark energy is meant to explain the constant acceleration of the universe. If you look at hubble's law you will see that objects that are further away are accelerating. Hubble's contsant increases as time goes on due to this acceleration . There is no known observable phenomenon that should be causing this, hence the theory of dark energy.

Dark Matter is thought to exist simply because there are gravitational oddities in the Universe that cannot be explained by visible matter. It is thought that Dark Matter is responbsible for the initial structure of the universe because the initial gravitational collapses of matter had to be cause by something.

It is assumed that Dark Matter is made up of WIMPS (weakly Interacting Massve Particle) and MACHOS (Massive Compact Halo Objects).

As for the theory of the big bang, there is far more support for this theory than contradiction. the Uniform nature of the Universe is one example of this because before the expansion of the universe, all matter interacted within close proximity and cooled to some extent.

Another prediction made by the Big bang model is cosmic background radiation. This was found by accident when 2 engineers working on a communication satelite antenna discovered a contant "hiss" in it's reception. Meanwhile, physicists at Princeton postulated that the initial light that was emitted during the big bang would now be microwave radiation seen throughout the universe. This was the constant "hiss" the two engineers had found.

The ratio of elements within the Universe is also an argument of support for the big bang theory. Roughly 74% hydrogen and 24% helium with 2% heavy elements make up the observable universe. The 24% helium in the Universe was created by fusing some of the hydrogen during the era of nucleosynthesis(before expansion) with the remaining 2% of the heavy elements having been formed later in massive stars.

[edit on 2-1-2007 by XphilesPhan]

[edit on 2-1-2007 by XphilesPhan]

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 01:31 AM
for the record, redshift is interpreted as an indicator of distance, but that does not mean it has got to be true, Halton Arp (search if you must) found at least one object with high redshift in front of a galaxy with normal redhsift, which would therefore most likely be intrinsic.

apparent quantization of redshift lends further creedence to the concept...

i don't have any good weblinks, unfortunately, because the one which explained it best went down in favor of selling books (understandable, of course) so will have to suffice for now.

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 05:40 AM
interesting thread. It does seem to me slightly implausable to introduce dark matter and then dark energy, just doesnt sound right. However, it could be true but ive got a feeling (or a hunch) that there will be an entirely new theory sooner or later.

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 07:19 AM
well I always thought the missing dark matter was tied up between the ears.

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 11:29 AM
Yeah in the book I mentioned the guy did a pretty good job of explaining red shift phenomina. Its explanation was simple and it made sense. And it had nothing to do with expanding universes, and it explained alot more than red shift doppler effect alone could.

Too bad I forgot the guys theory, but I remember at the time it was sufficient to make me doubt the doppler theory. Man I feel like Professor Farnsworth from Futuerama

posted on May, 29 2007 @ 06:30 AM
Lance is talking about a theory called the electric universe and whilst reading up on it I came across an interesting photo of X-ray energies emitted from Saturn.

posted on May, 30 2007 @ 05:12 AM

Originally posted by sy.gunson
Lance is talking about a theory called the electric universe and whilst reading up on it I came across an interesting photo of X-ray energies emitted from Saturn.

The universe is dynamic...

everything is in motion at high velocities....

everything is moving,spinning,rotating...


any charge imbalance will generate attractive or repulsive electric or magnetic forces.

a moving charged particle will generate a magnetic field and a charge particle moving in a magnetic field will experience a force...

what is a charged particle?

+ proton -electron

or any atom with an excess or deficit of above...

the universe is full of such plasmas

look at hubble pics...

all the stars are hot plasmas and must have a net deficit of charged particles due to the solar wind...

these electromagnetic forces ae trillons of times stronger then gravity BUT THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN USED IN THE BIG BANG THEORY.....


this why they need to invent all this rubbish about dark energy..dark matter...dark stupidity....

posted on May, 30 2007 @ 08:57 AM

Originally posted by BASSPLYR

Plasma dynamics is the youngest field of energy research strangely and so it's possible that it's fruit has not yet been tapped or harvested in regards to figuring out cosmology.
He also goes into depth about his idea for small cold fusion generators.

I have made several post on the big bang plasma recently
so yes plasma dynamics are still in their enfancy.
here is one

I still take the big bang as geniune and dark energy and dark matter as valid and also strings and extra dimensions are also valid to me.

[edit on 30-5-2007 by junglelord]

new topics

top topics


log in