The Infinite Universe

The Infinite Universe

by Infinite712

When we look at the night sky, we see countless stars within our Milky Way galaxy and telescopes reveal more and more galaxies every day. But does it ever end? I would argue that the universe never comes to an end. The further you travel out; you will always find more and more matter. An infinite universe in all directions. There certainly cannot be any border or boundary that surrounds everything because there would always have to be something on the other side of it.

Nor can there be a finite amount of matter that’s surrounded by 'infinite nothing' or 'infinite empty space' because these are nonsensical concepts that have nothing to do with physical reality. Besides, are we really that special? Is our universe a finite oddity surrounded by absolutely nothing? Infinite nothing with a tiny speck of 'something' which we call "the universe"? Or is there simply a never-ending amount of matter in all directions. Clearly, the latter makes much more sense.

There is an unlimited amount of material objects (such as galaxies, etc.) in all directions. Also, what is "empty space" supposed to be? All of what people generally regard as 'space' (such as air) is really some kind of matter in the gas state and these gases are composed of smaller parts like everything else. There is no such thing as empty space. Likewise, there is also no solid matter since all matter is comprised of smaller pieces. A finite universe assumption is irrational because it has to include the idealistic notions of "perfectly empty space" (end of the universe) and "perfectly solid matter" (elementary particles).

Yet the current model of the universe in mainstream science is in fact that of a finite universe. Not only that, but the current model is an especially strange version of a finite universe. Mathematical physicists claim that everything is inside of a 4D expanding sphere called “space-time”. But what lies outside of this unimaginable sphere, according to this irrational theory? Maybe some of their unimaginable extra-dimensional 'multiverses'?

The word “multiverse” is an oxymoron. If uni-verse is defined as “the totality of everything that exists”, then obviously there cannot be multiple “all that exists”. This 4D finite model of the universe makes absolutely no sense. In fact, they even claim that the 4^th dimension is time. But what does time have to do with dimensions (length, width and height)? Absolutely nothing, that’s what. Time and dimension are completely unrelated concepts that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Saying that time is the 4^th dimension is like claiming that justice is the 4^th dimension. It’s complete nonsense. There are no extra dimensions. Matter can only be measured with the three dimensions of length, width and height.

The current cosmological model also claims that this 4D universe was created out of an abstract concept called “a singularity”. A singularity is truly just a synonym for nothing though. According to this so-called “Big Bang” theory, everything appeared out of nothing. Originally, the nothing or “energy” or “singularity” (or God) was in an extremely hot and dense state and it was this way for all eternity, but then a miracle happened. The nothing began expanding rapidly. Then this expansion of nothing eventually caused particles to appear out of nowhere. This is the type of astounding nonsense that comes about from relying too heavily on mathematics instead of reality.

Oh, and of course the “Big Bang came from another universe / M-theory” is not any better off. This idea still involves many universes being created out of nothing and it involves a bunch of unimaginable extra-dimensional multiverse nonsense. No matter which way you slice it, the Big Bang theory is completely impossible and leads to contradictions and absurdities.

The much more obvious conclusion is that the universe is eternal. Matter is always recycled, it cannot be created or destroyed. So, in addition to the universe being infinite in all directions, it is also eternal (i.e. time-less) Indeed, time is merely an abstraction invented by humans. Time is just a mathematical system of counting, one second, two seconds, three seconds, etc. which is based off of the perpetual motion of matter.

But that’s not all. There’s still another “infinity” that I haven’t mentioned. Infinitely small matter and infinitely large matter. It was once believed that atoms were the smallest, most fundamental units of matter. But, then it was discovered that the atom is also made of smaller parts. Everything is made of smaller PART-icles, and those particles are made of even smaller particles and so on and so forth.

There are no fundamental units of matter. Infinite shapes, shapes made of smaller shapes. It could not be any other way. The idea of a perfectly solid 'fundamental unit of matter' is complete nonsense. What would be inside of this alleged 'elementary particle'? The notion does not make any sense. All entities, without exception, must be made of smaller parts and so this means that alleged elementary particles such as the 'Higgs Boson' are impossible to exist.

Likewise, the so-called 'space' (gas) between objects is also filled with smaller parts and those parts are made of even smaller ones, etc, etc. There is no perfectly empty space and there is no perfectly solid matter. All matter contains smaller matter in either the solid, liquid or gas state. The same applies to the macroscopic direction: stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, etc, etc, etc. This all implies perpetual cause and effect; the motion of an object is caused by the infinite matter in motion within and without. Just as there is no motion without matter; so there is no matter without motion. All matter is in constant motion and there is no matterless motion.

The scientific establishment is quite fond of this fallacy of matterless motion. A good example of this is the word “energy”. But what does energy mean? This is what energy means: “the capacity to do work”. Energy is an abstract concept and yet many are confused into treating this irrational word as an object, a fallacy known as “reification”. What this essentially amounts to though is matterless motion; all motion with no matter. Absolute nonsense. In reality, there is no such thing as energy. There is only matter. Matter ‘exists’ whereas motion of matter ‘occurs’.

Matter can only interact with other matter by way of direct surface to surface contact. And yes, that includes the actions that we call 'gravity' and 'magnetism'. These are mediated by sub-atomic objects that push against other objects.

Since ‘all that exists’ is matter (objectively), this means that the word 'universe’ refers to "all matter" or "everything". In conclusion, the universe is infinite (never-ending) in both the microscopic and macroscopic directions and is eternal (lasting forever). Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

 

The Big Bang Never Happened

 

Georges Lemaitre, catholic priest

The theory of the Big Bang is based on catholic church dogma referred to as “creatio ex nihilo” (creation from nothing). It was first proposed by a catholic priest and mathematician named Georges Lemaître. His goal was to make science compatible with religion. Lemaître was invited to London in order to take part in a meeting of the British Association on the relation between the physical Universe and spirituality. There he proposed that the Universe expanded from an initial point, which he called the "Primeval Atom" and developed in a report published in Nature.

Lemaître himself also described his theory as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation"; it became better known as the "Big Bang theory," a term coined by Fred Hoyle.

One of the many problems with this theory is that it claims that all matter was magically created out of an abstract concept like “nothing” or “energy” or “a singularity”. All objects (matter) have a 3d shape / surface. There is no physical mechanism by which an object can appear out of nothing, nor can an object be converted into nothingness. There also is no actual evidence that such a miracle is possible. Objects can only move, that’s what they’ve been doing for all eternity. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. For example, a tree does not appear from 'nothing' (whatever that is), it grows from a seed by having more molecules added to it. Creation from nothing is an impossible miracle that never happens. The only way to 'create' something is to use existing materials. Like using wood to create a house, for example.

Another problem with the Big Bang theory is that it reifies the concept “space” into a physical object which can expand. First they claim that space is matterless, and then they say that this matterless concept is expanding. Concepts such as space, time, love, justice, adventure, etc. cannot expand, only an object such as a balloon is capable of expanding. The scientific establishment uses a phenomenon known as “redshift” to try and support this nonsense. However, astronomer Halton Arp has shown evidence that low redshift galaxies are connected to high redshift quasars. 

This finding contradicts the idea that redshift is always a reliable indicator of distance. As the vibration that we perceive as 'light' propagates through it's medium, it eventually weakens, especially while having to pass through various gases and plasmas and will therefore shift to the red spectrum. Incidentally, this also explains why the night sky isn't filled with infinite star light. It's because light vibrations don't propagate forever, they come in contact with objects which cause the vibration to weaken. So this “expansion of space” idea is based off of the mathematician’s irrational interpretation of redshift.

Quasar in front of a galaxy

The so called “Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation” is also used as evidence, even though this has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang. The CMB is just the temperature of the observable universe and temperature is a concept which we use to measure the motion of matter. What this really means is that there is a physical medium of vibrating particles. Ironically, a lot of pre-Big Bang theories actually 'predicted' the temperature of the observable universe much more accurately than the big bang theory did. So the CMB cannot be used as evidence for a Big Bang.

So, let’s review. The Big Bang theory relies on reifying abstract concepts and claims that all matter was created out of nothing. In addition to this, there is absolutely no evidence to support this nonsense. The only rational conclusion is that the universe is infinite and eternal.


From http://infinite712.hubpages.com/hub/The-Infinite-Universe and http://infinite712.hubpages.com/hub/The-Big-Bang-that-Never-Happened

For more information about the nonexistent big bang and our infinite cosmos see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/infinity or http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/no%20big%20bang   

Help This Unique Independent Site Survive

Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!

Just click in the jar -

Xtra Image – http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6189/6161617036_1f90b7f1a7_b.jpg 
Video @ http://youtu.be/dG1JpC5jels

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the page @  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

The Prince of Centraxis - http://centraxis.blogspot.com (Be Aware! This link leads to implicate & xplicit concepts & images!)

This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a small but heartfelt donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper!

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Einstein Was Wrong

Einstein Was Wrong

Debunking the underpinnings of all that’s taught by conventional thought

by michael.suede

1. Quasars’ brightness does not correlate to their observed red shift as it does with galaxies. This refutes the notion of “expanding space” and the big bang. High red shift quasars can be well accounted for with known properties of light acting in the plasma vacuum of space. Paper proving this here.

2. Quasars with low red shift have been found more often than not to match their host galaxy. This proves Halton Arp’s ejection model of quasar formation. Paper proving quasars match their host galaxies red shifts, with the odds of correlation 1.5 in a million, can be found here. Further, high and low red shift objects re observed to be interacting with each other. The odds of quasar/galaxy quartet NGC7630 being a random chance alignment occurrence are on the orders of billions to one. However, NGC7630 does not stand alone; dozens of other interacting objects have been observed.

3. Quasars with low red shift along with galactic red shift can be explained by the CREIL effect, a property of light acting in the plasma vacuum of space interacting with diffuse hydrogen. This effect can account for all the effects of galactic red shift cause by “expanding space.”

4. Quasar red shift is observed to be quantized, as is shown in the published papers listed here. This means the earth must be at the center of the universe in order for the big bang model to be true. Quantization is shown to be related to the harmonic 0.062 in quasar and galactic red shift here. This harmonic finding has never been refuted to my knowledge.

5. The M87 galactic jet has been observed to eject matter at speeds faster than the speed of light. Theories proposing orientation as a solution for this do not agree well with observation. Los Alamos plasma physicist Anthony Peratt has shown how charged plasma can account for all observations of the M87 galactic jet without the need to invoke ‘black holes’. Indeed, Peratt’s theory, which is based on Alfven’s work, can account for the double jets we observe in some AGNs – which I believe remains unexplained in the standard model. Double radio sources were predicted by Alfven before their discovery. Paper showing this to be true can be found here.

6. Physicist Stephen Crothers has demonstrated the physics behind black holes to be a fallacy. Black hole physics violates SR, which means it also violates GR. Even by the mainstreams own standards, black holes are an impossibility. SR forbids infinite point mass particles such as a black hole singularity. Further, Schwarzschild’s original paper that proposed the solution to the Mercury orbit problem, from which the black hole is supposedly derived, is regular in all of space-time. This absolutely refutes the notion of black holes. Schwarzschild’s original paper in English can be found here.

7. The LIGO has never detected a gravitational wave. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.

8. A recent study of Quasars show them to be devoid of all effects of time dilation. This directly refutes the notion of “expanding space” and the big bang. This is a primary falsifying observation of Einstein’s theories. Article on the subject here.

9. All observational evidence of the Sun refutes the notion that the Sun is a gravitationally collapsing gas cloud that is powered by a hydrogen to helium fusion reaction. The surface of the Sun is only observed to reach around 6000 degrees, while the corona high above it can get into the millions of degrees. Sun spots are the deepest place we can see into the Sun, yet they are the coldest places we can measure. These observations directly refute the notion that heat energy is being released from the core of the Sun.

 

Other observed anomalies that refute the notion the Sun is a gravitationally collapsing gas cloud: neutrino deficiency, neutrino variability, differential rotation by latitude, differential rotation by depth, sun spots, the sun spot penumbra, even magnetic field, etc... the list goes on. Refutations to existing arguments as well as links to the solar models in question can be found here. In conjunction with this point, see point 19 as refutation against magnetic reconnection as a mechanism of heat transport.

10. All comet nuclei that have been directly observed have proven to be rocky with no visible water present on the surface. This refutes the standard theory of comets. Comets are also observed to emit x-rays and have filamented tails. This is unexplained by the standard model, yet these observations were predicted by plasma cosmologists. Supporting articles from a wide range of sources can be found here.

11. All comets observed falling into the Sun or passing very near the Sun have subsequently been followed by coronal mass ejections. This is not explained at all by the idea a comet is a dirty snowball, yet this is well explained by plasma cosmology’s view of comets. Also, comets have observed to brighten at distances too far from the Sun to possibly be attributed to sublimating ice. This too is explained well by plasma cosmology's view of comets.

12. Stars have been observed that are too cold to possibly host nuclear fusion. These stars are called brown dwarf stars and may be the most numerous stars in the galaxy. The explanation of these objects by the standard model is poor. If the star is too small to gravitationally ignite a fusion reaction, it stands to reason they shouldn't be cooling at all. They should be simple gas giants. However, they are well explained and predicted by the electric star hypothesis.

13. GPS clocks and all other phenomena that supposedly “proves” Einstein’s version of relativity can be accounted for better using steady state models of the universe. Lorentz's model can well account for observations in a steady state universe. Physicist Tom Van Flandern lays out the evidence here. An alternative theory based on Lorentz’s work that accounts for why the MM experiment null result, as well as all other aberrations, can be found here. Similarly, physicist Randal Mills has demonstrated predictive success with a model solely based on classical physics. The simplicity of these models and accuracy of their predictions merits further review.

14. The WMAP has show the existence of large scale voids in the supposed “cosmic background” from the big bang. These voids were not predicted and directly refute the notion of the big bang. Further, as the ACG so eloquently states, it seems that there are spurious temperature anisotropies that are comparable with the entire anisotropy found in the WMAP team’s maps. Therefore the entire analysis of cosmological parameters based on these maps is wrong. Indeed it seems very puzzling that an analysis that is so contaminated with errors should come up with parameters anywhere near those expected by LCDM models.

15. The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying. This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed “missing mass” of galaxies. The theory of dark matter is tantamount to physicists simply making up matter to account for the failure of their gravitational models.

16. Quasar Q2237 “The Einstein Cross” – this quasar directly refutes the notion of gravitational lensing. This quasar is supposedly ONE quasar being lensed into 4 images. The individual quasars are observed to brighten and dim independently. They are not oblong in shape. They are visibly connected by a plasma field. They are observed to change position. All of these observations are in direct contradiction to gravitational lens theory. I personally find the micro-lensing explanation to be a stretch of the imagination. The notion that gravitational micro-lenses are the cause of this effect are at such extreme odds that it is next to impossible for them to properly account for the variations observed over time.

In conjunction with argument 16:

If you agree that gravitational lensing is caused by black holes, it follows that you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lenses;

If you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lensing, then explain why we don’t see any lensing effects at the center of the Milky Way. High mass objects bend light according to GR as was supposedly demonstrated in the 1919 eclipse paper here, given that, the measurement arm excuse seems to fly in the face of standing theory. In fact, gravitational lensing theory has so many contradicting theories in support of it, one can not find a single standard view of lensing to even refute. I could attempt to refute one model, only face conflicting data from another model, and so forth - of course none of the models are backed up by any laboratory experimentation.

Further, if we look strictly at the observational evidence in support of lensing, excluding red shifts, we find that halo structures are all that's left to explain. If the assumption is made that red shift is caused by some other property beside expanding space, all one needs to do is explain the observed halo effects and light refraction. There exists in our own solar system such a massive halo effect that is not caused by gravitational lensing. The Phoebe ring of Saturn is a great example of a non-gravitational lensing halo.

Further, given that we know it’s possible to bend light here on earth without gravity, it stands to reason that there is probably some real property of plasma acting in space that can account for what is observed.

See the Berkeley's lab that works on bending light.

17. All Hubble deep field images show fully formed galaxies at the supposed “edge of the universe.” – if we are actually looking back in time to the birth of the cosmos, this should not be so. We should see developing galaxies, not fully formed galaxies.

18. Gravity is not constant. Every attempt to measure gravity has resulted in changes over time. No method of measuring gravity has ever proven gravity to be constant as is mandated by the general theory of relativity. This is direct falsifying observational evidence that GR is wrong, which also means SR must be wrong.

19. “Magnetic reconnection” as it applies to its use in explaining the Sun and the aurora’s violates the known laws of physics. Magnetic fields can not merge and snap imparting force. Magnetic field lines are not real objects. A paper by Scott proving this. This was also shown to be unnecessary by Falthammar here. AND Alfven himself rejected this idea in Cosmic Electrodynamics and in this paper here.

20. Neutron stars and pulsars violate the known laws of physics. The proposed density of neutrons in these stars by the standard model violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. Neutrons can not be packed together that densely without having them fly apart instantaneously. Also, in pulsars, rotation rates have been observed on the order of 1200 hz. This also flies in the face of standard theory. It is impossible that a star can rotate that fast. The outer edges of the star would be approaching appreciable speeds of light. Plasma cosmology offers a far simpler explanation that doesn’t violate any laws of physics.

21. Saturn's rings are observed to emit radio waves. This is not well explained at all by gravitational models of ring formation. Further, to quote the KTH annual 2008 report:

The data obtained by the Cassini Radio and Plasma Wave Science instrument (RPWS) during the shallow (2005-02-17) and the steep (2005-07-14) crossings of the E ring revealed a considerable electron  depletion in the proximity of the Enceladus orbit. Assuming that this depletion is a signature of the presence of charged dust particles, the main characteristics of dust down to submicron sized particles have been derived. The size distribution is found to be well described by a power law with an index 5.5 to 6...Two papers have been submitted to Planetary and Space Science.

22. Io's volcanoes are observed to move around the surface and leave burn marks behind them. Also the volcanoes plumes exhibit filamentation. Peratt and Dessler demonstrated how electric forces could account for Io's oddities.

23. Standard galaxy formation models require the use of black holes and dark matter to achieve approximate model fit to observation. These hypothetical entities have never been proven to exist. Peratt has demonstrated super-computer formulations of plasma using standard classical physics to produce a galaxy formation model that does not require any hypothetical entities. His model well agrees with observations.

24. Stars located at the center of the galaxy do not agree with the standard model of galaxy star formation. They are too young by the standard model of measuring a star's age to have formed at the locations observed. Theories that attempt to account for this are orders of magnitude improbable.

25. Frame dragging has never been definitively proven despite numerous attempts to look for it using numerous satellites. The most famous of which is Gravity Probe B. The final report issued by the Gravity Probe B team utilizes a hypothetical model to account for the effects of static build up induced error on the gyros. The raw data showed no signs of any frame dragging at all. Given that a purely hypothetical model was used to massage the data, the reports findings lack any definitive proof of frame dragging.

26. The Pioneer space probe speed anomaly can not be explained by standard model physics. Plasma cosmology offers a proper explanation.

27. After nearly 100 years, Einstein's theories have not been unified. They are not falsifiable. These two facts alone merit reconsidering their continued use. The lack of unification and lack of fundamental ties to reality demands explanation. The LCDM model of the universe has no less than 5 adjustable parameters that can arbitrarily be adjusted to account for observation. This is no different than Ptolemy's epicycles that were continually adjusted to account for observation without providing any real explanation of the mechanics behind what is being observed.

28. Galaxies have been observed to be moving in dark flows. This observation stands in contradiction to the standard model of galaxy and universe formation. Such movement can be well accounted for in an electric model.

And finally, a large collection of papers in support of the arguments made.

Professor Donald Scott lays out the case for plasma cosmology at the NASA Goddard Space Center’s Engineering Colloquia in this video.

From http://fascistsoup.com/2010/04/11/einstein-was-wrong/  as presented @ http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?p=34496&sid=f8d658c6906561336f18b33de5f260c0

YouTube @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y09KQxcSjc&feature=player_embedded

Xtra Images - http://www.feandft.com/Cold_Electric_sun_4.jpg.gif

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Electric%20gravity.jpg

For further enlightenment see –

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 http://newilluminati.blog-city.com

New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559  

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 http://newilluminati.blog-city.com

Introduction to the Electric Cosmos

Introduction to the

Electric Cosmos

New Insights Into the Unknown Universe

There is a revolution just beginning in astronomy/cosmology that will rival the one set off by Copernicus and Galileo.  This revolution is based on the growing realization that the cosmos is highly electrical in nature.  It is becoming clear that 99% of the universe is made up not of "invisible matter", but rather, of matter in the plasma state. 

Electrodynamic forces in electric plasmas are much stronger than the gravitational force.

    Mainstream astrophysicists are continually “surprised” by new data sent back by space probes and orbiting telescopes.  That ought to be a clue that something is wrong.  New information always sends theoretical astrophysicists "back to the drawing board".  In light of this, it is curious that they have such "cock-sure" attitudes about the infallibility of their present models.  Those models seem to require major "patching up" every time a new space probe sends back data.

    Astrophysicists and astronomers do not study experimental plasma dynamics in graduate school.  They rarely take any courses in electrodynamic field theory, and thus they try to explain every new discovery via gravity, magnetism, and fluid dynamics which is all they understand.  It is no wonder they cannot understand that 99% of all cosmic phenomena are due to plasma dynamics and not to gravity alone.

    When confronted by observations that cast doubt on the validity of their theories, astrophysicists have circled their wagons and conjured up pseudo-scientific invisible entities such as neutron stars, weakly interacting massive particles, strange energy, and black holes.  When confronted by solid evidence such as Halton Arp's photographs that contradict the Big Bang Theory, their response is to refuse him access to any major telescope in the U.S.

    Instead of wasting time in a futile battle trying to convince entrenched mainstream astronomers to seriously investigate the Electric/Plasma Universe ideas, a growing band of plasma scientists and engineers are simply bypassing them.  A new electric plasma-based paradigm that does not find new discoveries to be “enigmatic and puzzling”, but rather to be predictable and consistent with an electrical point of view, is slowly but surely replacing the old paradigm wherein all electrical mechanisms are ignored.

    This information is excerpted from a web site which is dedicated to explaining the basis of this ongoing scientific shift.  It also presents links to other sites where you can investigate the details of what is happening.

       These pages are designed to be read through in order, starting with the Introduction.  If you do this, the background information needed for understanding any given page will have been presented in an earlier page.  However, each of the topics below is discussed in a reasonably self-contained way for anyone who just wants to pick and choose. 

What is wrong with present-day accepted astrophysics?

 

It is not scientific.  In today's world many people characterize themselves as being 'scientists'. Only those who always carefully follow the scientific method are deserving of that title.  Modern establishment astrophysics fails the test in several ways.

The Empirical Scientific Method

 

Scientists are distinguishable from artists, poets, musicians, and others in that they use what is known as the 'scientific method'.  It is not that 'inspiration' or 'the muse' is not valuable in science, it is - but it is not the starting point of what we call science.  In the process called the scientific method a true scientist will:

Observe nature - carefully record what is seen.

 

Seek patterns in the observed data - put numbers on the data - fit equations to those numbers.

 

Generalize those equations into a word description of the process - this is a hypothesis.

 

Carry out experiments and/or gather independent data to see how well the hypothesis predicts future observations and results. This is called "closing the loop" on your hypothesis.

 

Reject, or modify the hypothesis if the experiments show it falls short of success in these predictions.

 

Only after the results of several experiments have been successfully predicted by the hypothesis, can it be called a theory.

 

If two different theories predict a given phenomenon equally well, the simpler theory is probably the best one.  This principle is called Occam's Razor.

Theories can never be proven to be correct - some other mechanism entirely may be the cause of the observed data.  But theories can be disproved if they fail to predict the outcomes of additional experiments.  Such theories are termed to be falsified. Sometimes the scientific method as described above is called the empirical method.

 

The Deductive Method

 

As an alternative to the empirical method, there is a method of deriving theories from assumed generalizations about the universe.  This is called the deductive method.  In this process one starts with a "law of nature" or "obviously correct" generalization about the "way things work" and deduces (reasons out - derives) its consequences in detail.  A hypothesis arrived at via this method is promoted to the status of being a Theory if a large enough body of experts 'accept' it.  Thus, in this method, a vote of the experts determines if a theory is correct.  Once such a theory has been accepted it is not easily rejected in light of conflicting evidence; it is, however, often modified - made more complex - and, unfortunately, new data is often selectively chosen to support it.

 

The selection and publication of only the data that support the accepted theory is expedited by the "peer review system".  If the experts who have accepted a given theory control both the funding of future research and also what gets published, there is little chance for conflicting viewpoints to develop.

 

 

 

Pseudo Science

 

Some hypotheses, when presented by august, well established scientists, are given credence without anyone questioning whether the hypothesis has been developed using the scientific method. Yet in most cases it is not difficult to check whether or not the scientific method has been used correctly.  For example, consider the hypothesis that "There are gnomes in my garden that always make themselves invisible when anyone tries to observe them."  Clearly, no conceivable experiment or observation could falsify that statement.  This is evidence the hypothesis comes from a pseudo-scientific source.  Legitimate theories must be falsifiable.

 

The Problem Faced by Modern Astronomy is that Experiments Are Not Possible

 

Because the stars are light years away, we cannot hope to be able to go there and perform experiments on them. Until relatively recently even the planets were out of our reach.  Thus, cosmologists never get to complete the scientific method.  We cannot 'close the loop' in cosmology. But, if we cannot test our hypotheses, how can we reject or modify them?  The answer, of course, is that astrophysicists, more than those in any other branch of science, must be exceedingly careful to continually examine their hypotheses in light of any new data.  It is the contention of the author of these pages that they have not been doing this.

 

Einstein was a purely theoretical physicist - he never went near a physics lab.  He conducted only 'gedankenexperimenten' - thought experiments - in order to arrive at his general theory of relativity (GR).  This is a perfect example of the deductive method at work.  Its use is exceptionally dangerous in an area like cosmology wherein it is difficult to falsify any theory.  Now that the GR Theory is accepted by establishment astrophysics, any new data (such as photographs of the astronomical object known as the "Einstein Cross") are discussed only within the framework of this complicated theory.

 

The images of the four small objects in the Einstein Cross when looked at only from this viewpoint, are considered to be supporting evidence for the GR Theory.  However, they could just as well be interpreted as being evidence supporting a much simpler cosmological theory.

 

Evidence contradictory to the accepted Big Bang Theory, such as images of connections between objects that have widely different red shift values, are dismissed as being mirages.

 

False Assumptions in Astrophysics

 

Most of today's accepted astronomy/cosmology is a set of deductively arrived at hypotheses precariously based on two false assumptions :

Electrical fields, currents, and plasma discharges are not important in space. Only gravitational and magnetic fields are important.

 

If the light from an object exhibits redshift, the object must be speeding away from us.  And its distance from us is directly proportional to that speed.

Both of these assumptions are demonstrably wrong. They have been, and continue to be, contradicted by actual observations of the sky.  Those observations tell us that

The universe is highly electrical in nature.

 

Redshift is more a measure of an object's youth than its velocity.

 

The continued refusal of astrophysicists to re-examine their hypotheses in light of these new observations is the focus of these pages.

 

 

 

Invisible Entities Invented To Patch Up Failing Theories

The theories that have sprung from these faulty, overly complicated mathematical models have given birth to such arcane notions as: curved space, neutron stars, WIMPs (and now WIMPZILLAS), MACHOs, several different types of black holes, superluminal jets, dark energy, and magnetic field lines that pile-up, merge and reconnect.  All of these inventions are fictions put forth by astrophysicists in desperate efforts to defend their theories when faced with contradicting observations.  None have ever been observed or photographed.  Many of them are demonstrably impossible.  But their existence is repeatedly invoked to explain new observations and measurements that contradict the enshrined theories of modern astronomy without resorting to the use of electrical principles.

 

We continually hear statements such as, "There must be a black hole at the center of that galaxy." (Otherwise we cannot explain its level of energy output.)  "There must be invisible dark matter in that galaxy." (Otherwise we cannot explain how it rotates the way it does.)  "Ninety nine percent of the universe is made up of dark energy." (Otherwise the Big Bang Theory is falsified.)  "Pulsars must be made up of strange matter." (Otherwise we might have to look for an electrical explanation). 

We are also asked to believe that two objects (like galaxy NGC 4319 and its companion Markarian 205) are not connected together even though we have photographs of the connection. So, we are told not to believe in the things that we can see, but that we should believe in the existence of the magic entities that their theories require - even though we cannot see or measure them.

 

 

Astrophysicists Denigrate Outsiders - Then Quietly Adopt their New Ideas

 

There have been several instances in the past when the astronomical mainstream has long rejected an idea that is later accepted.  There is usually no public disgrace for the in-group who were on the wrong side of the issue.  When, after being viciously denigrated, the validity of a new idea becomes inescapably obvious, a few years go by, and then we quietly hear: "Well, Everyone has known for a Long Time that this (the new idea) was always true."  An example of this is Hannes Alfvén's discovery of plasma waves. This relatively recently discovered property of plasmas is now being wrongly used by astrophysicists to explain away all sorts of (what is for them) enigmatic phenomena - such as the temperature inversion in the Sun's lower corona.

 

The Future

 

In a few years, perhaps we will hear: "Well, Everyone has known for a Long Time that quasars are not extremely distant, and red shift is more a measure of the youth of an object than its recessional velocity and distance.  No one said for sure there ever was a Big Bang.  It was just another false theory.   Everyone has known for a Long Time that electric currents flowing in plasmas produce many of the mysterious observed solar and cosmic phenomena."  And we will not hear of machos, wimps, neutronium, dark energy, and broken magnetic field lines from any serious scientist ever again.

 

Time will tell.

 

Will the founders of the Electric / Plasma Universe Theory be acknowledged as having been the pathfinders they are?

 

Or will lesser men quietly adopt these ideas without giving credit to their originators and then claim them to be 'well known'?

 

See the Electric Cosmos Web Site at http://www.electric-cosmos.org/introduction.htm

 

The following pages discuss some of the people, observations, and ideas, that challenge the false assumptions that mainstream science refuses to re-examine. When you read them, remember that any single unanswered challenge of this sort is enough to bring down the pseudoscientific magic show that modern astronomy/cosmology has become - like a house of cards.

 

Go to next page

Model of Interstellar Space

Plasma - The Fundamental State of Matter

Missing Matter

Our Sun

Solar Neutrino Problem

Stars

Galaxies

Solar System

Red Shift

Summary

 Links

Electromagnetic Fields in Space (Published, Peer Reviewed, IEEE paper)

 Solar Surface Transistor Action

Bayes Theorem

Reply to Tim Thompson

Return to the home page

See The Electric Sky - The New Astrophysics at

http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Images - http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/Hissink_part3_Figure%201.jpg

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/crab_chandra.jpg
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/starspot.jpg
http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Stellar%20circuit.jpg

 

 

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati:

@  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com (or click on any tag at the bottom of the page for direct references – case sensitive)

And see

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

 New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

 New Illuminati on Facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-Illuminati/320674219559 

The Prince of Centraxis – http://centraxis.blogspot.com

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a tiny donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com