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 in Crisis—Again! Electric theory gains more support

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 07:50 PM

Originally posted by peskyhumans
Yeah I'm sorry, my last post may have seemed confusing. What I was trying to say is that perhaps there is an increasing curve in mass to gravity calculations that doesn't fit with our current model. From what I understand, our current model basically equates mass to gravity on a 1 to 1 ratio. What I'm trying to say is that as you get into extreme mass objects, such as black holes and what not, their force of gravity is actually much stronger than what the current model of gravity accounts for (a rising mass to gravity curve). Maybe as objects get heavier and heavier, their force of gravity increases faster than what we currently account for in our present model.

This would allow for all of newtons calculations to still be correct, as at our smaller-scale planetary level (low mass objects) the current model does actually work correctly, however with extreme mass objects, such as supermassive black holes (which are required for the formation of spiral galaxies) their gravity would be stronger, farther reaching, than what our current model accounts for. This would mean we wouldn't need dark matter to fill in any gaps to hold our galaxy together, its all held together by the black hole.

Anyway its just an idea, I just wanted to explain myself better, not trying to argue with you or anything. You know more about this stuff than I do, so you could very well be right. Do you think this idea is possible at all?


this is something they are trying to propose now.

what that boils down to is the laws of physics being different in different areas of space.

this is the equivalent of saying "god did it" IMHO because it provides us no reason why this should be so.

electric cosmology can address these issues without the need for modifying the physics of space.

[edit on 21-6-2009 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by mnemeth1
electric cosmology can address these issues without the need for modifying the physics of space.


sometimes the simplest answer is the correct one

no need to invent complicated formulas and equations or whatnot

granted it keeps scientists employed, but it must be hard inventing theories to explain other bad theories like blackholes, even mr. Hawking has recently revised his blackhole theory which science has accpeted as fact but alas look he changes his mind, everyone back to the drawing boards quick!

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 12:11 AM
While the Electric Universe Theory may be true, lest we all forget that the modern model of the Universe has led us to the many advancements we have today. Modern cosmology as explained A LOT of complicated things that can be predicted and tested by these confirmed predictions, like pulsars for example. Also I do not see why people claim the Big Bang Theory is on 'thin ice', it is actually as steady as ever and the recent WMAP images show that. All that we have observed (for the most part) has been predicted accurately by modern mainstream cosmology. Just because it is complex or confusing to some people does not mean it is wrong. Granted right now there are many conflicting and seemingly 'physics gibberish' type theories out there but keep in mind this as well before you go bashing and challenging modern cosmology and calling it cult or religion like:

We are now at a point in cosmology and theoretical physics(keep in mind the THEORETICAL part, no one claims theoretical models are fact) where we have never been before. In the last 110 years we have discovered the quantum world and its "zoo" of particles, we have discovered the Doppler effect, we have discovered many, many strange things in space that is quite frankly pushing our small minds to the brink of what is possible to comprehend. We have broken down particles to their fundamental string forms and one of the string theories is likely correct, this too can be proven with mathematical proofs and observations in cosmosology and astronomy. It is a joint operation here, we are also now, as the great Dr. Michio Kaku says, "past the Big Bang and into pre-Big Bang physics". Do you know we have broken down the entire Universes life into 7 epics, almost each one we can confirm by current observational techniques. Do you know that now scientist are into ground breaking research in the hyperspatial dimension that appears to exist outside of our space, let alone the multiple research efforts (that are making promise) on the subspatial realm, quantum vacuum, or the spacetime foam (whatever you must call it). I can see where there are some issues that can be challenged by the Electric Universe supporters and mainstream cosmology denouncers but I really do not see how many of what is challenged can be or has any bases.

There is no arguing with the many real world proven technologies predicted by quantum mechanics (which are a major factor in modern cosmology) nor the many peer reviewed, multiple observed astronomical observations and predictions made on these so called "made up theories". Just because something seems "impossible" to us from our limited real world views DOES NOT make it impossible in the rest of the Universe and its exotic and high energy macro and micro physics relationship by any means. Just because we can not go and travel to stars or make stars in a lab (yet) does not mean we can not prove theories by observations and predictions from ground and space based observational points. Those who said that modern cosmology and theoretical physics "does not follow the scientific method" were also complaining about all the theories and no laws. Well there are so many theories because mainstream astronomical science DOES follow the scientific method and because there is no way to get a absolute real world test (like dropping an apple from a tree) modern astronomical science is proceeding very cautiously and will not consider any of the already proven theories laws until MANY MORE direct observations are made, which would prove beyond any likely probability that the prediction is right, even without a direct real world test.

With current technology it is simply impossible to conduct any high enough scale tests to prove any of these theories the classical way, I mean think about that for a second, think about trying to prove some of the quantum theories, relativity theories, string theories, pulsars, black holes, etc. Cosmologists have NEVER said that they know what dark matter is and have always said it is more of a term for our ignorance gravity than anything "real". Nor have they claimed that all of their theories are right, even though many look like they are. One must understand that right now we are in so far over our heads with super, no hyper advanced physics observations of the entire Universe and beyond that it will be a mess somewhat for a while, until we figure out what is going on. We are putting the pieces together slowly but surely, just like they did in the early and mid 20th century with basic quantum mechanics and relativity among others. Also I think that the WMAP and Hubble findings pretty much clinch the Big Bang as fact. To those who said it is "impossible" for stars in the center of a spiral galaxy to not fall into a black hole; You are wrong, even large black holes do not exert long range effects strong enough at many lightyears out. Remember gravity is the weakest force, but it is the longest reaching force (infinite reach that obviously weakens more with distance). It takes a lot more gravity than a super massive black hole has to pull massive stars(which are what occupies the galactic centers) out of their gravitational 'trough' from many lightyears out. It has also never been stated that a supermassive black hole MUST be present for spirals to form. I fact it is commonly believed that the form from previous galactic collisions, as well local star density. So to the detractors of the current Universe model, it is all good and well to challenge theories but to say something has pretty much not explained the Universe adequately is erroneous at best. There are MANY things we have yet to fully understand, that doesn't make everything else false or give credence to another theory with basically no real world observations that have led to any solid proof however. Oh, and CERN will be producing micro black holes in a few months so we should all see real soon just how much legitimacy modern models have.

posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 03:46 AM
I challenge you to find me one thing that has been "predicted and tested by these confirmed predictions".

Pulsars were first believed to be rotating stars that sent out a beam of energy in the direction of earth. They were never "predicted". Pulses were observed coming from stars and they required an explanation.

When scientists first postulated the theories of pulsars, they started off with a maximum limit of a few rotations per second. Then as we observed pulses coming from stars that got up into the millisecond range, the theory was adjusted again. This time the theory required "neutronium" or "strange matter" that violates the Island of Stability law in nuclear chemistry.

Pulsars, as explained by modern theory, violate nearly every law of physics we have established. From nuclear chemistry to Newtonian physics.

btw, did you know the planet Jupiter produces millisecond radio pulses?

last time I checked, it wasn't spinning on its axis at 1000 times a second.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by mnemeth1]

posted on Jun, 24 2009 @ 08:29 AM

Originally posted by jkrog08
Also I do not see why people claim the Big Bang Theory is on 'thin ice', it is actually as steady as ever and the recent WMAP images show that. All that we have observed (for the most part) has been predicted accurately by modern mainstream cosmology. Just because it is complex or confusing to some people does not mean it is wrong. Granted right now there are many conflicting and seemingly 'physics gibberish' type theories out there but keep in mind this as well before you go bashing and challenging modern cosmology and calling it cult or religion like:

Since you seem to be referring to my comments, I also would like to know of some of these predictions verified.

Cosmology is and has been in crisis since the beginning of the space age, where interpretation of the observation are twisted and tweaked in an attempt to reconcile the theory. I think it's far more accurate to say that the structures observed in space were absolutely not expected and nothing has been predicted.

Here's a few examples, lets take the so called three pillars. This could be very long, but I'll just be brief.

CMB - What the text books leave out is that proponents of other cosmological models predicted the temperature of the CMB far more accurately than the big bangers. All without the need for a big bang. So the CMB CAN NOT be considered proof of any particular model.

Cosmological Red shift - this one to me is extremely puzzling, it shows the level of denial that exist and blind faith. Edwin Hubble himself gave preference for tired light hypothesis in the end.
Halton Arp has cataloged many, many so called anomalies that absolutely, no doubt completely falsify the Hubble law. Quasars attached to galaxies with totally disproportionate red shifts, quasars with high red shift in front of galaxies much lower. He was martyred IMO, banned from using a telescope in the US. Sounds like persecution for rocking the faith to me. He's not the only one to experience this.

Nucleosynthesis - This held up for a while but definately should of died in the 90's, the predictions have been getting progressively worse against observations. Also if dark matter is included into the equation, then it exceeds the limits allowable for deuterium, (heavy hydrogen) in big bang nucleosynthesis. No BBN no big bang.

The three pillars are nothing but stack of cards, except they've actually already fallen. Only the dogma remains.

I'm not bashing for the sake of being a protagonist. This is holding us back in so many ways, and we won't be able to progress until we accept the fact that it has failed.

I'd like to post one more thing.

As you can see all is not well in the queen of the sciences. Don't take it personally jkrog. I know you have an open mind from what I've read. If you are indeed looking at a career path in this field I thoroughly suggests you look at the alternatives first, because you'll leave free thinking at the door.

posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 11:29 AM
I wrote some whole introduction and my background, but I really just want to ask a question since it states at

Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance.

How do these other theories explain the redshift?

For as long as I can remember I have been doubtful of the "birth" and continued expansion of the universe. That was the _only_ explanation I had been exposed to (Besides "god did it") and I came up with my own theories and ideas regarding things like that - but I could never accept that the universe had been birthed - It had to have always been here, always will be here and more than likely goes on forever. I always thought that people who so adamantly opposed this either were letting their ingrained religious beliefs cloud their view or they could not grasp the idea of infinity and forever. One of my ideas was that there was some type of localized expansion-like effects going on (and subsequent contraction-like effects) that from our incredibly limited perspective appears to be universal expansion. My other idea was that we had a sister universe and both of the universes acted like two bladders with a star expelling matter/ space-time on one side and a black hole sucking in matter/ space-time on the other. At the moment we are in a very star-heavy area/ time of the universe and consequently it appears that the fabric of the universe is expanding. I had up to this point only seen the incredibly dumbed down eyecandy science shows and had my extensive public schooling.

Then I decided to figure out what evidence actually points to the big bang, since I had observed so many lies perpetuated as absolute fact and contentedly swallowed and regurgitated by the plebians around me. Huh! I was pretty shocked when I found out that it was only the red-shift of far away objects in space. I could not believe it. Don't energy waves change in some way after traveling insane distances and for insane amounts of time or if they are traveling through medium? And besides the red-shift, there is not one other shred of observed evidence...... The CMB was only used as evidence to prove the red-shift & expansion. And the red-shift is based upon this huge fixed-energy-wave assumption? Duh.... What is wrong with this world I live in?

I have seen a bunch of the electric universe videos, but I forget if they said anything about the red-shift.

I was talking with my girl about this stuff last night and she just could not believe that scientests would completely discount and actively try to bury actual observations and evidence

posted on Jun, 29 2009 @ 06:29 PM
Plasma cosmology postulates that red-shift is a function of optical correlation.

Here's a bunch of published papers on the subject:

Near the bottom you'll find at least 8 papers on correlation induced red shift, a well known property of charged plasma.

[edit on 29-6-2009 by mnemeth1]

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in