Plasma Cosmology vs Big Bang Theory! | INFJ Forum

Plasma Cosmology vs Big Bang Theory!

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Rift Zone, Mar 20, 2014.

Share This Page

More threads by Rift Zone
  1. Rift Zone

    Rift Zone Community Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    5w6, 1w2, 3w2
    What if the universe has existed for eternity? What if it will exist forever? I have a cosmological story to share with you guys... If you're interested. There's a small but growing band of scientists who believe in a form of plasma cosmology. The science behind that cosmology tells of a universe that exists independent of time. Plasma Cosmology tells us many wonderful things about our universe! Big Bang universe truly seems boring and lame by comparison.

    I'm not sure if you guys are interested in knowing about this theory so I go into too much detail. I know Big Bang Theory really well. I also know Plasma Cosmology really well. If you are interested in learning about space sciences, I'd be happy to share the status of human knowledge with you. It would be my pleasure to tell you what Big Bang Theory thinks, what Plasma Cosmology thinks, and what we can prove through observation.

    I know what the universe says about a lot of things (repeatable observations). I also know both models really well. One thing very obvious to me: Big Bang Theory is not an accurate description of the universe. This universe is plasma. That's an undisputed fact. Plasma cosmology is also a fact if the universe. If you're interested in knowing more, I'd be happy to share why that it is.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  2. apemon

    apemon Permanent Fixture

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Threads:
    18
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    622
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    9 wO
    Sounds interesting. Have you any article links ?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  3. Nixie

    Nixie Resurrected

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Threads:
    84
    Messages:
    9,524
    Featured Threads:
    3
    Likes Received:
    3,582
    Trophy Points:
    976
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Oregon
    MBTI:
    ENTP
    What if the universe didn't exist at all?

    What if I insisted that I'm just a figment of your imagination?...an imaginary friend who doesn't really know you or maybe even like you.....
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  4. OP
    Rift Zone

    Rift Zone Community Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    5w6, 1w2, 3w2
    http://www.plasmacosmology.net

    [video=youtube;KmotCQCxQEI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmotCQCxQEI[/video]
    [MENTION=3096]Nixie[/MENTION], evidence points to this is all very real... Of course, if you're right, my imagination would be limited to that perspective. =)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. apemon

    apemon Permanent Fixture

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Threads:
    18
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    270
    Trophy Points:
    622
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    Enneagram:
    9 wO

    I imagine that would be interesting. All the world's a stage they say----
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  6. sprinkles

    sprinkles Well-known member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2013
    Threads:
    70
    Messages:
    9,482
    Likes Received:
    6,757
    Trophy Points:
    1,011
    MBTI:
    xxxx
    My imagination? You sure you wanna be up in there?
     
  7. Jack

    Jack Community Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    160
    MBTI:
    ENTP
    Hey, I'm always interested in alternative ideas. I saw this pretty late, so I'm probably not going to have the time to watch the video until tomorrow, but the first thing I generally think of when I hear about an eternal universe is Heat Death. In other words, a state of maximum entropy, wherein 'no energy can be exploited to perform work,' which seems to be the inevitable fate of our universe, and would presumably be an issue if the universe had existed in eternity past.

    I mentioned this in the Death of God thread. If I understand your response correctly, could I describe it as suggesting that the self-organizing properties of matter might serve to counter those aspects of the second law which would lead to this particular fate?

    I have no doubt this issue was probably among the first things addressed when developing a cosmology for an eternal universe, so I bet you could expand on that a good deal.

    If you don't mind, tell me a little more about this idea, and what you think makes it superior to Big Bang cosmology.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  8. Eventhorizon

    Eventhorizon Permanently relocated
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Threads:
    251
    Messages:
    16,553
    Featured Threads:
    31
    Likes Received:
    10,223
    Trophy Points:
    2,187
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Have at. Use paragraphs though in your posts though, not whole books (like some people) I lose interest by the second paragraph unless its very well written.

    The big bang theory has always been disappointing to me and I wouldnt be able to tell you why. Just that it never seemed to fit. So you can imagine my disappointment today as scientist say they think they have found the smoking gun for the big bang theory.

    M Brain theroy seemed like a more plausible solution. But I still believe that they will probably prove one day that our entire universe resides within a computer of some sort. EVERYTHING drops into place if you look at it from that angle. Its not that the universe has mass, its that it has RULES that say it has mass from the observational perspective.

    Atoms are nothing more than place makers etc..
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  9. OP
    Rift Zone

    Rift Zone Community Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    5w6, 1w2, 3w2
    Hi ya, @Jack! I'm glad you're receptive to new ideas! That will make discussing science with me a lot easier. =) In the interest of full disclosure you should know a little about me: I'm an independent researcher/astrophysicist. I'm not employed as a scientist and I have little direct association with academia. Also, my understanding of the universe is unique. I'll be inclined to deny perspectives modern science holds in favor of plasma cosmology perspectives. In other cases I will supersede teachings of plasma cosmology and tell you things about the universe only I hold to be true. To make matters worse, I don't always agree with Relativity and Quantum Mechanics -the two of the most successful theories humanity has ever produced. In many ways, I'll outline an entirely unique perspective you want to hear my take on things. You should carefully consider if it's worth your time! I mean, in essence I'm telling you I'm either seriously, irrevocably bat-shit crazy or I understand the nature of the universe better than any human. (<--I didn't ask for any of this so please don't judge me too harshly on that statement, I just call it like I see it. In truth, the isolation isn't worth it. I just want a simple life with a good woman, but no, I had to be a freak... Lovely! That's just fucking wonderful.) Anyway, you can find a taste of my scientific aptitude in the links if you want to get a feel for how my perspectives stand to scrutiny within a more science savvy community. Some there had nice things to say about me! =) For instance: "Cool. You're up for a Nobel Prize."

    The resident math genius, "Chief Scientist; Adjunct Full Professor of Computer Science; six times Who's Who in the World; national, state Advisory Panels; author of two books, many papers; Jedi Math Dog", had this to say about me: "I have noticed your intellect... it stands out, even here. You hang in there, and before you know it, you will be a theory builder!"

    http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?t=119394&page=5

    http://intjforum.com/showthread.php?t=121446&page=2




    And here's a brief outline of my scientific blasphemy... Exhaustive research has given me these impressions. Also, it would seem I'm the only one who would tell you such things:

    The antimatter debate: you don't need to create pairs to have antimatter. Energy will readily take form in either. Only, this universe is left handed. =) That's right! It just happened that way. Reverse polarity changes relative orientation of forces. Because of the way matter orients it's fields, any energy stabilizing into a particle here will have a preference to matter, not anti particles. Removed from outside forces, a bunch of energy stabilizing into a particle would have a 50/50 chance of going antimatter... Unless it has characteristics other than its own existence. If we can apply angular momentum or anything like that to it, then the state of the energy will define anti or plus. I have confidence in that assessment but further testing is needed to confirm it. Still, the preponderance of matter coming out of active galactic nuclei and heavy atomic collisions give the impression we already have tested and confirmed that perspective.


    I'm also fairly certain matter doesn't actually gain mass as it approaches the speed of light. As if you would start pulling stars off position if you went by them really fast. That consequence is a matter of the mathematics needing to balance out. It balances but in a different fashion. Redefining time and particles is necessary to making that perspective relevant. It's related to time dilation. The matter will essentially behave as if it were in a heavier gravitional field.


    I've redefined time. I can disprove time travel in a paragraph:
    [It's not a technical feat, its impossible. When you look into the night sky you see stars. That essentially means you have absorbed and incorporated energy into your being that originated all across the cosmos. Likewise, your body temperature exists far above absolute zero. That means you have been a radiation source that has been lighting up this section of the galaxy since you were born. The energy that makes us is essentially transient and it is so deeply and intricately interwoven into the rest of the universe we could never be isolated from it. Time travel is asking the universe to completely reconstruct itself without your energy -Not gonna happen. No rebuilding the universe unless you're here to join us. Besides, time does not exist as a dimension, there's nowhere to go. Thinking of time as a dimension is a very effective and beautiful way to track how the universe is interacting, but that model does NOT directly apply to the nature of the universe. The only thing we can infer from the existence of time is that the universe's constitutes are dynamic. The universe exists independent of time.] This is contrary to parts of Einstein's Relativity.


    I can explain why time dilation occurs, not just what it does.


    There is no fabric to space. "Space-time" does not exist. It is an analogy, not a precise description. [E=mc^2 was genius! Much of what Einstein described exactly relates to physical reality. He's still the man.]


    Particles exist in a fashion that agrees with QM while proving Einstein right about his reservations against QM. Ultimately, I'm going to prove Bohr lost that argument. This is contrary to current perception of quantum mechanics.


    Quasars are essentially full-spectrum lasers. The difference is they keep particle disassociated energy in resonance, not merely atomic structures.


    Neutrons are the universe's most powerful energy source. Quasars (active galactic nuclei), supernovae, and magnetars all burn neutrons for power. The only thing that collapses to oblivion when you exceed neutron stability is human mathematics.


    "The Mystery Spot" and similar places are terrestrial analogues of sunspots.


    Earth's continents are what remains of protoEarth's original crust. Continents, as we have them on Earth are unique to all known worlds and could not have developed as a natural consequence of planet formation. [Archaic Crust Theory can be found in this section of the forum.]


    A consequence of Archaic Crust Theory of Continents likely takes us much closer to discovering/understanding how life formed on this planet.


    Sprites -the lightning phenomenon, are essentially the same type of spark that occurs when you touch "hot" electrical wires together. The intense upward lightning hyper-agitates the matter in the day glow band and explodes it much like an electrical fire does to wires.



    Absolutely! Properties of plasma dictate self-organization. Plasma is a known fact of the universe! Lighting, solar wind, stars, galactic arms and the filaments that link the clusters and superclusters are all plasma. This universe is plasma. In fact, every time you read "filament" in an astrophysical/cosmological context, it explicitly says plasma! Those are plasma filaments, every time, please make no mistake about it. The entire observable universe is linked by energy conduits! That "web" of galactic clusters and superclusters is a web of plasma. Recent observations show stars go "up and down" in the galactic disk as they rotate about the center of the galaxy. That phenomena is inexplicable in gravitationally based theories of the universe. Plasma behavior tells me they're not simply going up and down, they are spiraling around prevailing plasma conduits. But ya, plasma doesn't pay much attention to the second law of thermodynamics. Thermodynamics 2 is a balance, not a directive of the universe. Until our theories say that, they are wrong. Pure and simple, wrong. I'd be happy to tell you all about it, provided you're still interested in my input.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. OP
    Rift Zone

    Rift Zone Community Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    5w6, 1w2, 3w2
    I don't know... Nothing I've ever seen gave me that impression. Plausible? -sure, but even more unlikely and complicated than taking it as it appears.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  11. Eventhorizon

    Eventhorizon Permanently relocated
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Threads:
    251
    Messages:
    16,553
    Featured Threads:
    31
    Likes Received:
    10,223
    Trophy Points:
    2,187
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Isnt our universe proving to be exactly that though?
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  12. OP
    Rift Zone

    Rift Zone Community Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    5w6, 1w2, 3w2
    Not from what I see. Everything I see leads me to believe we can eventually build quantum computers but we are not products of one. This universe is the real deal.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  13. Eventhorizon

    Eventhorizon Permanently relocated
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Threads:
    251
    Messages:
    16,553
    Featured Threads:
    31
    Likes Received:
    10,223
    Trophy Points:
    2,187
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Tell me, do you play video games? If not have you ever seen a virtual world on a computer? If you have, imagine an character within that program given consciousness to the point it recognizes (or at least thinks) it exists. The rules of his world allow (well call it him) him to build things out of his environment. He first looks to the stars with telescopes made out of the same material as the rest of his world (what would be nothing more than energy and rules to us, perhaps binary numbers at an even lower level but all of it existing from energy. In this case electricity)

    Then he turns his attention to the very small. He sees that things dont act as they should. Solid, isn't really solid. Atoms, arent really there, at least not in terms that make sense to us. Electrons and photons can actually go back in time and change their action for no other reason then something observed them. Not an act of theirs for they aren't intelligent and wouldn't know they had been observed, more likely from rules that realized they had been observed.

    So yes, you could build things out of the rules you understand in your environment. The things you had access to touch and see. But what of the memory where your program is housed? What of the hard drive and computer where these things are given life? You will never see these things because they are not part of your world. To you, assuming you could detect them at all (you would never be able to though) you would never be able to affect them in a meaningful way.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  14. OP
    Rift Zone

    Rift Zone Community Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    5w6, 1w2, 3w2
    Did you see post #9 in this thread? From the get go, we have a difference of opinion on your adept translation of Quantum Mechanical behavior. Your second paragraph is exactly what QM says and I disagree. Secondly, I'm not dualist. I think this realm is the only one we have. There is no "behind the scenes" realm for things to hide in. Judging by your signature, I suspect we have a philosophical difference of opinion there too!

    Yes, I play video games. I love my Guild Wars 2 account. My Sylvari has a rather rich environment to play in. I hear what you're saying but I still disagree. A sentient creature existing within my video game probably could find out what it's made of and the nature of it's environment. We can do the same thing and it doesnt look like our environment has the level of sophistication within its directives to create this universe. We can see deep enough into it to know we are for real. Thinking of anything as a solid thing is a false illusion. Particles themselves are not tiny little solid things, they are energy. Thus, our understanding of reality is a bit off but we are real none the less.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  15. DonTaushMe

    DonTaushMe Well-known member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2013
    Threads:
    11
    Messages:
    1,661
    Likes Received:
    380
    Trophy Points:
    637
    Gender:
    Female
    MBTI:
    ESTJ
    Enneagram:
    8w9
    :O Tell me everything!
     
  16. Eventhorizon

    Eventhorizon Permanently relocated
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Threads:
    251
    Messages:
    16,553
    Featured Threads:
    31
    Likes Received:
    10,223
    Trophy Points:
    2,187
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Regarding how far we can see into our world. I think its a stretch to say just because we can see this or that, it proves we are real. Thats a little bit like the argument religious people use to "prove" there is a god. We may in fact be "real" to our best understanding of it but it doesn't mean we have not been created by something outside of our realm that will forever be beyond us. Also, my example of a video game world...clearly a game world like this would be considered highly crude when compared to the complexity of our own world that we see all around us. However, this is not proof that it cant be so.

    An article I read not long ago said that if our computing power continues to advance as it is currently for the next 10 years or so, at the end of that time we will be able to house our entire known universe to include all of the atoms, electrons etc and their actions within a single computer. This of course doesn't account for consciousness of things living in the universe but if you read Dr. Michio Kaku's "The Future of the Mind", he suggests will be able to easily hold 6 billion minds within a computer as well. It doesnt matter if they are real, all that matters is that they think they are real.

    Post #9... There is more than two paragraphs. Sorry, I know its odd but my concentration level makes it difficult to focus on that many words. Can you break it down to the specific part you want me to look at? Yeah I know, trust me.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #16 Eventhorizon, Mar 28, 2014
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2014
  17. OP
    Rift Zone

    Rift Zone Community Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    5w6, 1w2, 3w2
    Where would you like me to start? Its a big universe. =)




    We can leave it at: we have a lot of disagreements about the fundamental nature of the universe. I firmly believe that when we piece together the theory of everything we will find everything consistent with the reality of the universe. Furthermore, we are and will continue to be able to peer deep enough into the universe to know the difference between being authentic and simulation.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  18. Eventhorizon

    Eventhorizon Permanently relocated
    Banned

    Joined:
    May 19, 2013
    Threads:
    251
    Messages:
    16,553
    Featured Threads:
    31
    Likes Received:
    10,223
    Trophy Points:
    2,187
    Gender:
    Male
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Interesting. Most theoretical physicists these days admit to being exceptionally baffled by the nature of known existence. Whether or not a quantifying theory will be found at some point in the future is beside the point. Right now, its seems far off to say the least.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  19. LucyJr

    LucyJr Well-known member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2013
    Threads:
    52
    Messages:
    2,412
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    185
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    What if you are a illusion? or a internet robot? :p
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  20. OP
    Rift Zone

    Rift Zone Community Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2014
    Threads:
    14
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INTJ
    Enneagram:
    5w6, 1w2, 3w2
    There are traits of matter/energy that we will never be able to precisely quantify. Knowing the theory of everything will not give us the capacity to describe exactly what is or what will be next. There will always be a level of uncertainty in our knowledge. So, Einstein was wrong to some degree about the universe being deterministic. Still, his arguments against QM are valid. Humanity applies a classical physics view of matter to modern knowledge of it's properties. They are necessarily incompatible and much of the confusion around QM behavior stems from that.


    Ya, that's more or less what Eventhorizon is saying... I'm not so sure. =)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
Loading...

Share This Page