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.


Cosmology Quest : an alternative to the big bang

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 09:29 AM

Universe - The Cosmology Quest is a unique mixture of a human interest and science documentary film. It exhibits a sharp understanding of the struggles in astronomy and cosmology during the past decades. As the first comprehensive film dealing with major new approaches in non-big bang cosmologies, it reveals several deep-rooted theoretical and observational controversies. This is a fact, well hidden from university students and the general public, which is recounted with candour; and potentially leads to the down-fall of the presiding Big Bang theory.


This documentary is truly a breath of fresh air, as well as giving a run down of the history of many of the standard theories It addresses the conflict within astronomy, the dogmatic view of the big bang in the face of conflicting evidence and the ostracization of opposing views.

I must mention one fascinating theory proposed by Halton Arp. His theory based on observation suggests that galaxies spawn quasars that may very well be proto galaxies. Galaxies give birth to other galaxies! The theory cost him his job.

The second half mainly deals with plasma cosmology, a theory that is growing in popularity. Plasma cosmology does not attempt to explain the beginnings of the universe, It's based on observation and repeatable lab experiments as opposed to pure math. But if your into math it's there if you want to investigate. There is no need for black holes, dark matter or an expanding universe. All of these are based on mathematical assumptions and a reliance on gravity as the dominate force in the universe.

Plasma Science
Finally a theory that makes sense.

Space is electric in nature and electro magnetism is the prevailing force. Mainstream astronomers consider space to be electrically neutral and yet they often refer to huge magnetic fields at work.

The theory is Birkeland currents permeate space and connect galaxies, stars and planets like giant circuits. They are braided and sometimes as large as a lightyear across.

The documentary on youtube is split into 12 parts, parts 1-6 deal with the controversy. Parts 7-12 explore plasma cosmology.

The documentary parts

[edit on 31-7-2007 by squiz]

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 12:10 PM
How is this information (on the internet, no less) hidden from university students? The internet was formulated to help universities share information. Basically any student has to type in "alternative to the big bang" in Google and they'll get some sources. Basically, no information you'll going to find on the internet is blocked from university students - maybe in university computers, but universities offer some personal internet package too.

posted on Jul, 31 2007 @ 06:43 PM
The information isn't hidden, but it certainly isn't promoted either.. they are not going to start talking about a set of theories that go against the whole paradigm we have. Its all about funding.. science is a business, sadly.

posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 01:38 AM
An alternative to the Big bang

The first paragraphs are an interesting read and they show the flaws of the big bang theory.

While I'm still unsure about the big bang I must admit that it doesn't really make sense.

posted on Aug, 9 2007 @ 12:31 AM

Originally posted by RememberThisName
How is this information (on the internet, no less) hidden from university students? The internet was formulated to help universities share information. Basically any student has to type in "alternative to the big bang" in Google and they'll get some sources. Basically, no information you'll going to find on the internet is blocked from university students - maybe in university computers, but universities offer some personal internet package too.

They NEVER mentioned any of that in any of the 5 astronomy classes I have taken at a very mainstream university on the east coast. All that was taught to me was everything astronomers "know" about the galaxy. Then again, it might be taught elsewhere, but in my astronomy 101, 220, 350, 360, and 390 classes, it was not.

posted on Aug, 12 2007 @ 11:30 AM
I registered just so I could talk about plasma cosmology, at least for now.

It is difficult to decide where to begin, but I will just start by stating that I have studied plasma cosmology for the past 10 years. I have not yet written any books, and my papers where simply rejected by the mainstream process, but through direct interaction with others in the field and through teaching and informing others, I have had a large influence on the topic. I can even see statements made by Arp and Lerner in that video that are directly related to my contributions (yes I have interacted with both of them,) though I am not looking for credit, just trying to establish credibility so that you understand there is substance behind my thoughts.

Concerning plasma and universities: I studied at Michigan Technological University in the physics program, supposedly one of the US' better physics programs. Indeed it was good, but the only time the word plasma was spoken was in relation to semiconductor sputtering processes! Basically, at least at that university, plasma is kept out of the students minds. I had to give seminars to my professors and fellow students to teach them about plasma and it's role in the universe. It IS possible to get people to open their minds, but it is not easy. I can give multiple accounts of direct interaction with these mainstream astrophysicists and their reaction to ideas that go above and beyond their acceptable world view. I also worked on the Pierre Auger Observatory project (the worlds largest cosmic ray observatory), and have seen first hand how the internal thought mechanisms for building the observation equipment are centered around what the observers think they already know about gravitation, completely ignoring the possibility of electromagnetically driven process. But that happens a lot.

There is a long chain of historical events and political motivations within the sciences which have led to the present focus by mainstream academia on gravitationally centered cosmology. I will not get into this here, suffice it to say that even in the 1800s there was a battle between the gravitationally centered world view and the electromagnetically centered world view. That battle is still in existence.

There could be deeper reasons why plasma cosmology is shunned by the mainstream, deeper than the simple reasons such as funding mechanisms and elitism. Just as Tesla was eventually covered up because he was on to the truth, perhaps plasma cosmology is fought against because it is so enlightening.

I am talking large scale energy and matter transfer mechanisms between galaxies and clusters, electro magnetically driven mechanisms for energy dispersion in the form of stars, large scale cellular and filamentary structure to space. Eternal energy storage and transfer mechanisms, a view of the universe as having always existed in some form. So called evidence for "dark matter and black holes" turns into clear proof of Plasma processes at the center of galaxies (large scale double layers, pinch effects, filaments, energy transfer mechanisms.)

If one studies the history and the original works of the founders of the field, one plainly sees that Plasma cosmology is the most realistic and scientific paradigm within cosmology. It's foundation is empirical, it's predictions verified as we first sent detection equipment into space.

I could go on and on and on but I won't, that is best saved for a book which I have often considered writing. But tt is difficult to gather the steam to accomplish such a task when you must work a day job just to barely survive and also be faced with obvious impending doom and tyranny within your government. Ill try to add more later, I have been tempted to register here and create a thread specifically about plasma cosmology, I suppose this is a start. Thanks for listening.

posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 05:41 AM
Thanks for the contribution Ionized, By all means start that thread or contribute to this one. The situation in cosmology is an interesting one, how can so many educated and seemingly intelligent people be so blind to obvious?

Public awareness of this issue is a must, the potential for solving the cosmic mysteries, a new perspective on life and the opening of doors to new technology is very real. I was very taken with plasma cosmology and the electric universe theories.

Just a quick question, If your willing to stick around I'll probably have a lot more. I was wondering where plasma cosmology stood on the electric sun hypothesis? or is that the domain of the electric universe theory?

For those who are new to the electric universe theory, it is an extension of plasma cosmology that extends to mythology, ancient planetary catastrophe's and electrical cratering as well as biology. Thunderbolts of the Gods is a must see if your interested in cosmology or mythology.

Google Video Link

posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 06:40 PM

How can so many educated and seemingly intelligent people be so blind to obvious?

There are few true physicists, willing to enter the realm of vulnerable open-mindedness. In order to venture into reality as it is, one must cast off preconceptions, and analyze from a holistic viewpoint. Very few physicists are also historians and anthropologists, but for progress to be made, it is essential that the researcher has an understanding of the cultural and historical setting of his science and of himself. A study of consciousness is also a must, including an understanding of what are referred to as Eastern mythologies, such as Zen Buddhism. Without a holistic frame, one understands only bits and pieces. While we can't truly model the exact nature of the whole, as we are within it, we can however describe things in such a way that progress in understanding is achieved, and teachable to others.

It is rare for people to come along who have the proper set of analytical tools, cultural surroundings, and motivation to piece things together at the right time under the right contexts, but it happens and that is how real scientific history is made. The majority of physicists deal with the allegedly 'known' sciences, and expand on it. The true paradigm shifters are the ones that study the known physics along with its history, the contexts both past and present, and the alternatives if censorship has not completely erased them from history. There will always be a battle between ignorance and truth in physics. Concerning cosmology, Hannes Alfven referred to this as "The Cosmological Pendulum" in which predominant cosmologies tend to alternate between what he termed 'Prophetic' and 'Actualistic'.

Before I move on to your question let me relay one of my early experiences at university, my first meeting with the head of the physics department at the time, he was an astrophysicist of course. You see I was naive (still am concerning many things) and in my naivety I thought that universities where a place of learning. In my first meeting with the department head, I recall explaining to him my previous independent studies of cosmology and its history, and what I planned to expand on while studying physics at university. You see I went into it with my own preconceptions, that is, that the Big Bang is not based in reality, but my preconceptions where founded on historical and cultural study of the field (my father was an anthropologist so one can see how that influenced me at the time.) I told him of my intent to study plasma cosmology, and with a shocked look on his face he replied "The Big Bang is a proven fact!" (He didn't really know what plasma cosmology was at the time, it was 4 years later that he was able to attend a seminar I gave on the subject, after which he was clearly moved.) Imagine that, proven fact. He went on to say that I could never disprove it and it would be a waste of time. Well I did disprove it many times over in my later studies, and I don't feel it was a waste of time. Money perhaps, I am still $50,000.00 in debt from attending college, and am seriously accepting donations to help pay for this, no joke at all. Are there any benefactors out there that would pay me to allow me to quit my slave "day job" and then write a book on this stuff?

I was wondering where plasma cosmology stood on the electric sun hypothesis? or is that the domain of the electric universe theory?

There is no doubt in my mind that the sun is part of a much larger network of processes that are electromagnetic in nature. But to attribute these thoughts to one theory or another, does disservice to progress at this point. Plasma Cosmology is still evolving, and very much includes ideas related to an electromagnetic universe. Plasma Universe is mostly a popularization term, and all of its topics could rightly be included in Plasma Cosmology.

Out of room, continuing in next post

posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 07:10 PM
To continue the response to your question:

Even the past and present founders of Plasma Cosmology need to eat and keep their jobs, so they play it safe and make up terms like Plasma Universe and Electric Universe to popularize the theories. That can have it's advantages, and disadvantages. It allows broader discussion of the theories while calming the attack from naysayers, but it also brings confusion among the public concerning what is really going on. In essence, it is all still Plasma Cosmology, because if you go back to historical definitions, Cosmology encompasses the study of the whole. Unfortunately, when the actual word Cosmology is used, for some odd reason people assume that the theories, if going against the mainstream anyhow, should be already complete. For some reason it is OK for the Big Bang to continue to change and assimilate parts of Plasma Cosmology, but it is unacceptable for any alternative to be proposed that is not finalized. That is one example of the many double standards.

Anyhow, certainly many parts of the Electric Universe ideas find home within Plasma Cosmology. While there have been some dispute about nomenclature and what not, most issues are semantic. The people putting forth ideas under the term Electric Universe are in fact directly contributing to the Plasma Cosmology, because it is still evolving. The paradigm is still shifting, and that is good because it is when the shift ceases that stagnation begins. That is when all the technicians come in and begin to 'prove' things within the framework. But if you start proving things too early, you might overlook a flaw in one of the fundamental assumptions. Or you might take your empirical observations, and replace them with some flawed theoretical version, which is exactly what happened with Hubble's Law. Let's take a look at that example, as it is one of the greatest blunders in modern science. The entire 'observational' basis for the Big Bang is really a theoretical basis. Hubble originally observed that redshift is inversely proportional to brightness. This was converted, by his colleagues, into a theoretical relationship between velocity and distance, which is today assumed to be the original Hubble's Law. Hubble wrote many times that this is not the interpretation he espoused, and shortly before his death he specifically stated that he never supported the Big Bang theory, and that one must be careful to properly interpret the empirical observational relationship which he discovered.

Anyhow, I'll stop there for now.

edit: Similar to the situation that happened with Hubble, I must reiterate that one must be very careful when analyzing Halton Arp's empirical observations. There is a distinct line between his observations (which are brilliant I might add, contributing significantly to Plasma Cosmology), and his and Narlikars Variable Mass Hypothesis. Too often I have seen people dismiss Arp's empirical observations because of his theoretical interpretations of them. A fundamental idea one can learn from a true understanding of quantum mechanics, or even meditation, is that theory is separate from empirical observation. The direct perception is achieved before interpretation, and one can learn to distinguish interpreted perception from uninterpreted perception. Similarly, a repeatable empirical observable stands on its own regardless of human interpretation.

[edit on 13-8-2007 by Ionized]

posted on Aug, 15 2007 @ 04:56 PM
found this cool site with tons of scienntific papers search for plasma or whatever simply amazing amount of info.

posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by priloco

Could we organize a mass demonstration to promote this new theory?

outside every university and observatory....

an UNOCCUPIED expensive observatory could be held hostage and would be smashed up if the astronomers refused to listen to us....or better still... we could simply paint the telescope mirror with graffiti...PLASMA THEORY ROCKS!

we could have a massive protest with scantily clad girls pole dancing and shouting plasma universe RULES!



we could have massive publicity by using tesla coils and lightening effects on the the cavelcade lorries.

naked girls and naked men (to satify the gays) could paint streamers on their bodies...

astronomers should be called gay if they support big bang theories as a big bang is a symbolism of the male orgasm.

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 08:47 PM
link my undergraduate university, every astrophysics undergraduate was required to take a course in space plasma physics ... I was almost certain that this was a fairly typical course to take...

posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by T_Jesus

It's not that plasma is denied in space, the misconception is that magnetic fields are frozen into plasma, this is something Hannes Alfven warned about in his nobel prize speech, unforntunately the warning wasn't taken.

The evidence for electricity in space is abundant, yet it's regarded to have no effect, even though electricity and magnetism cannot be separated, and the fact that electromagnetism is a thousand billion, billion, billion, billion times stronger than gravity.

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 12:11 AM
Hey there, interesting thread. This reminds me of another alternative cosmology theory, Subquantum Kinetics. The guy lost his job for that one, too. Apparently, he has had several of his more mundane predictions verified, (e.g blue/red shifting of maser signals at intergalactic ranges, otherwise known as the "pioneer effect"), yet he barely gets a mention in the mainstream. LINK

Subquantum kinetics is a novel microphysics paradigm that incorporates concepts developed in the fields of system theory and nonequilibrium thermodynamics. One of its distinctive features is that it begins at the subquantum level for its point of departure.

[. . .]

So, subquantum kinetics: a) begins with a mathematical model of subquantum processes; b) it then computer simulates this model to generate quantum level phenomena; and c) it compares the model's simulated results to actual observations. The model's mathematical parameters are then "fine-tuned" so that its simulated results accurately reflect experimental observation, thereby making the model a realistic representation of the physical world. Because, it begins with a single reaction system model as its point of departure for describing essentially all observable physical phenomena, subquantum kinetics qualifies as a unified theory. By comparison, conventional physics begins with many theories conceived independently from one another and later attempts to "sew" these together. But the result is far from unified, being instead a self-contradictory aglomeration.

Is this theory complimentary to plasma cosmology?

Thanks for sparking my interest in this, again. It's not something I often get to talk about, and I don't really understand it all, but hey, I like to roll with the punches.

posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 08:01 AM
reply to post by fingapointa

Thanks for those links, very interesting. It's the first I've seen of the theory, on the surface I don't see anything that would be at odds with plasma cosmology.
Ionized would be better qualified to answer that question.
Although some believe there is an ether, myself included, it's not provable at this stage. Plasma cosmology is built on observation and empirical data and experiment. The inclusion of too many theoretical ideas can be dangerous any one assumption could lead to an invalid conclusion.
The approach of working out from the electrical properties of the atom is the same approach taken by Wall Thornhill, one of the proponents of Electric Universe theory, he has also suggested the existence of the ether.
I'll be sure to look deeper into it. Thanks again.

posted on Oct, 5 2008 @ 03:15 AM

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:27 AM

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The information isn't hidden, but it certainly isn't promoted either.. they are not going to start talking about a set of theories that go against the whole paradigm we have. Its all about funding.. science is a business, sadly.

Theoretical science is expected to be full of new, radical propositions, as this example shows:

But these propositions need to be developed and there is a problem: there may be too many. And that means some of them are wrong. Which ones? You need to work on a particular concept for years to find out. When it stalls, you know that you bet on a wrong horse. Actually the people who gave you the money to support your research did.

Science has its own financial department where things are decided.

The conservative approach likes the Big Bang theory and points toward the way Fermat's Last Theorem was handled. Andrew Wiles' solution came under peer review, and inconsistency was discovered. It proved to be a tough assignment to smooth things out. A radical change in approaching the whole problem was one way to deal with the situation, but then it showed that one of the sets of arguments that the original concept had built had a glitch in it. Things got corrected and that was it.

The Big Bang theory may resemble Fermat's Last Theorem, but it may not. It's a matter of philosophy.

There is a reality to the questions regarding the Universe, but the answers may be limited by the ability of the human brain to reason. It may take much more advanced species to figure things out.

new topics

top topics


log in