THE BIG BANG
The ‘Big Bang’ is a term coined by the British Astronomer Fred Hoyle. It was made public during Hoyle’s talk during a 1949 BBC Radio broadcast. He said: “These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past.” Hoyle favored the steady-state cosmological model, so you can decide for yourself whether he used the term cynically. You can guess what NAS thinks.
If the accepted ideas about Big Bang cosmology are wrong, then flaws will be found by astroscientists with knowledge of electrical phenomena. Failings are now obvious due to a couple of unconfirmed assumptions about the Big Bang model:
Flaw #1: That gravity alone determines the structure and behavior of matter in the Universe.
Flaw #2: That redshift values are reliable indicators of how far away and how fast objects in space are moving toward or away from us.
Notice that electricity plays no part in the Big Bang model, even though it’s the most powerful force in the Universe.
GRAVITY IS KING
The word “dimension” is used to describe space and time. We’re taught that space has three dimensions: depth, up & down, left & right. That makes sense because it’s what we perceive and is part of reality. Time, however, is said to be the fourth dimension. Well, it has length, which is described as short or long. That’s also perceived and is part of reality.
However, problems arise when astroscientists combine time with the three spatial dimensions into four-dimensional space-time. They imagine a bizarre cloth-like thing called the ‘fabric of space-time,’ which can be warped by matter. Such an idea is akin to ‘time travel,’ or ‘parallel universes,’ – ideas that are great for sci-fi novels and movies but don’t exist in reality because they can’t be measured. We can measure space, and we can measure time, but we can’t measure space-time. Yet popular science gives ‘space-time’ a false impression of substance.
We witness metaphysics here – the branch of philosophy dealing with abstract concepts such as ‘being,’ ‘knowing,’ ‘identity,’ and ‘space-time.’ It’s an abstract theory with no basis in reality.
MASS & MATTER
The equation E = mc2 says that mass is the ratio of a body’s energy to the square of the speed of light in a vacuum. The English dictionary says that mass is a body of matter with no definite shape. How imprecise can we get? In fact, despite all the efforts of physicists, philosophers, mathematicians, and logicians, no one has defined what mass really is.
We may ask a simple question at the greengrocers: “How much do these potatoes I've got here weigh?” The shop assistant puts the potatoes on a scale and says “5 kg.” That’s the weight of the things, but isn’t that also the mass of the potatoes? Yep.
So, the weight of something under the influence of gravity is also its mass. That’s a definition of the mass of an object, isn’t it? Well, it certainly sounds like it.
Astroscientists assume that a kilogram of matter on Earth will exhibit the same mass, or gravitational effect, elsewhere in the Universe.
NEWTON’S LAW OF GRAVITATION
Mass is implied in Newton’s Law of Gravitation and is coupled with the gravitational constant, G:
F = GMm/r2
But is G truly a universal constant? Well, we know for sure that a subatomic particle’s mass can change in response to electromagnetic forces. Therefore, so can gravity. But what is exactly gravity?
The English dictionary defines gravity as the force that attracts a body towards the center of the Earth or any other physical body having mass.
That’s all well and good, but don’t we also experience gravity when undergoing non-uniform acceleration? Like when in a vehicle when the brakes are applied or it accelerates suddenly?
The thing about gravity is that it acts instantaneously. Newton recognized that, but Einstein’s ‘speed limit for information at the speed of light, c,’ says otherwise. Gravity must act instantaneously when connecting massive objects. If it didn’t, all the galaxies in the Universe would be disordered. They're not.
It’s clear that the observed behavior of gravity has nothing to do with time. There are no relativistic delays in its action. The Sun knows where the Earth is, even though light takes eight minutes to travel the distance between the two. Therefore, across the depths of space, light waves travel exceedingly slowly compared with the instantaneous effect of gravity.
So, what gives? What about electricity in space? Could not its universal influence be manifesting as the force of gravity? Where the local Birkeland current strength is high, won’t bodies in the vicinity exhibit higher gravity? Conversely, where the local Birkeland current strength is low, won’t bodies in the vicinity exhibit lower gravity? Think about our fossil dinosaurs.
AVOID UNDISCIPLINED THOUGHT
The sloppy use of scientific language, the uncritical adoption of mathematics, and the belief that thought experiments in astroscience are real must be avoided. Doing so leads to fake science and untestable descriptions of nature.
Browse through popular astroscience magazines on the newsstands, and you’ll come across black and invisible things. For example, “BREAKING NEWS: Magnetic Fields Force Back Gas from M87’s Black Hole.”
What utter garbage. Magnetic fields ONLY arise when there are moving electric fields, and vice versa. Yet mainstream astroscientists say that electricity plays little or no part in the workings of the cosmos. BTW, for your entertainment, the article’s opening paragraph is:
“Light emanating from the disc of hot gas around the supermassive black hole in the galaxy Messier 87 has been shown to be highly polarized, indicating the presence of magnetic fields that are dictating how the black hole feeds.”
It’s utter nonsense because the astroscientists are stuck with their ‘Gravity is King’ paradigm. Do black holes have stomachs? The astroscientists make observations FIT their theories, which keeps jobs secure, and no applecart ever gets upset. “Magnetospheric eternally collapsing objects,” aka black holes, are words used to pretend that we understand the cosmos. We never will with the wrong paradigm.
THE BIG BANG & COLLIDING GALAXIES
How do astroscientists explain concentrations of galaxies in a Universe that was inflating after the Big Bang at a speed that precludes matter concentrations? It gets worse. Astronomers using our big telescopes have shown dynamic interactions between galaxies in a supposedly expanding universe. On top of that, the expansion is said to have been accelerating.
Another thing about interacting galaxies is that astroscientists say that they’re colliding under the influence of gravity. But the Big Bang hypothesis originally discounted the idea of colliding galaxies. Mainstream astroscientists seem unbothered, and now colliding galaxies explain the interacting galaxies we see in our telescopes.
We now have a picture of galaxies strung across space in long filaments. Some galaxies are issuing jets, and most have had supernova events. We now see lots of organized structures out there in space at all electromagnetic wavelengths. And they’re all mocking the gravicentric paradigm.
STICKING PLASTERS ON THE BIG BANG MODEL
The internal motion of galaxies poses a dilemma for Big Bang proponents. Gravity is so weak that there’s no way for it to constrain the rapidly moving outer stars of galaxies. Indeed, they ought to be flying apart, according to Newtonian mechanics. So, what do mainstream astroscientists do to maintain their mistaken ideas? They invent a new form of matter. That this stuff obeys the law of gravity, is unresponsive to electromagnetic radiation, and is undetectable is fine to them.
Observations of type 1a supernovae have forced astroscientists to the scratchy conclusion that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating. This acceleration is forbidden within a gravity-dominated Universe. And it’s all because of the unjustified assumption that current redshift/distance relationships are wrong. For instance, high-redshifted quasars have been found to lie in front of their low redshifted parent galaxies:
NGC 7319's redshift is z = 0.0225. The quasar’s redshift is z = 2.114. According to astroscientists, the quasar ought to be way behind the galaxy, not in front of it!
So, what do astroscientists do to maintain their paradigm? They invent another form of energy, one that’s like gravity but repels matter rather than attracts.
How unscientific can astroscientists be? They can’t just go around sticking plasters on a model that’s falling (fallen more like) apart.
AND DON’T FORGET BLACK HOLES
Galactic nuclei exhibit far more intensely concentrated energetic outbursts than is possible by normal astronomical objects. One way to explain this is to invent a super-dense, high-gravity object at the cores of all galaxies.
The Indian-American astronomer Subrahmanyan Chandrasekar was inspired by Arthur Eddington’s gravitational model of stars to invent ‘black holes.’ However, Eddington didn’t like this untestable idea. He said, “I think there should be a law of nature to prevent stars behaving in this absurd way.”
We see here speculations proving speculations. It’s not science. It leads to theoretical expectations being torn apart by discoveries with new and better instruments. So, we get increasingly complex theories that are used as sticking plasters to hold the Big Bang model together.
LET’S START FROM SCRATCH
Nature doesn’t do things the hard way. As soon as we use another paradigm to explain what we see out there in deep space, things begin to make sense. That paradigm is one in which the powerful electric force is dominant. Wherever the electric force operates, there’s always a mutual magnetic effect – and vice versa.
Galaxies contain a large-scale magnetic field. Within that field are moving charged particles due to the forces exerted by the field. After years of experimentation, plasma physicists have worked out the behavior of plasma discharges. They can now trace the evolution of galaxies from straightforward electromagnetic principles. Below is a computer simulation of interacting Birkeland currents. Plasma clouds are trapped in parallel magnetic filaments:
The evolving galaxy needs no dark things nor a supermassive black hole.
Lab experiments in plasma physics and computer simulation show that the electric force can easily organize spiral galaxies. There’s no need for infinite densities nor untestable energy and matter to explain what we see through our telescopes.
Diocotron instabilities are slipping streams of glow mode plasma. Interactions between cosmic Birkeland filaments naturally produce accumulations of matter at electric current intersections. We see an example of this effect in the spiral arms of the galaxy NGC 3646 in Leo.
There's more about diocotron instabilities here.
This is a nice analogy and adds to the theory that space plasma is electrically dynamic. Plasmas in relative motion generate electric currents in each other, but mainstream astroscientists seem to be ignorant of this.
Plasma can be in dark mode (invisible, like the Earth’s ionosphere), glow mode (aurorae), or arc mode (stars). Electric current filaments in space plasma traverse space mostly in dark mode plasmas. When they intersect, they’re powerful enough to form stars via z-pinches. Over cosmic distances, they organize galaxies.
A star is a mere speck of dust compared to the enormous volume of the dark mode plasma between stars. A galaxy is just an insignificant blob compared to intergalactic space. The Burnham scale model, which is great for comparing the sizes and distances of the objects in the Solar System, is inadequate on the scale of the Universe. Plasma in space is so tenuous that it covers billions of light years to produce the witnessed widely scattered galaxies.
It seems that astroscientists have much to relearn and research. Perhaps in 200 years, modern astroscience will be more sensible as deadwood is removed. The clean-up process has begun.