Plasma Cosmology vs Big Bang Theory!

[Eventhorizon]

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. =)

Fair. I think we can say you are a scientist at this point right? If so you must see the irony of when you say, "You believe this, you believe that"

Oh and concerning Albert Einstein's statement about the fact the universe is comprehensible... I think but am guessing because I am not him, I think he was referring to the fact anything had evolved to the point it could comprehend it. That consciousness not only exists but exists at that level.

 

[Rift Zone]

Fair. I think we can say you are a scientist at this point right? If so you must see the irony of when you say, "You believe this, you believe that"

Oh and concerning Albert Einstein's statement about the fact the universe is comprehensible... I think but am guessing because I am not him, I think he was referring to the fact anything had evolved to the point it could comprehend it. That consciousness not only exists but exists at that level.

Academia doesn't consider me to be a scientist so my standing will depend on semantics. Between you and me, I'm not crazy so that only leaves one option. Besides, Archaic Crust Theory is completely demonstrable and irrefutable. Even if I never prove any more of this, history will have me down as a scientist for that one. I'm happy with the title "science geek" but if you want to call me a scientist I think it would flatter, honor, and humble me every time. (ya, humility. With knowledge comes power. Power necessitates responsibility. I'm either cray cray or I have a lot to answer for.)

The Einstein quote: Oh ya, I'm certain that was a big part of it. I know my spirituality/identity revels in that.

 

[DonTaushMe]

Mmm... [MENTION=10289]Rift Zone[/MENTION] - Explain the Big Bang Theory as best you can -everything I need to know and set up ideas you want me to know- keep in mind I may not know much at all about it so keep it detailed! And then explain Plasma Cosmology -everything I need to know and ideas you want me to know- and then tell me why you think Plasma Cosmology makes more sense, what this means: "The science behind that cosmology tells of a universe that exists independent of time." and where the Big Bang Theory is lacking. Tell me every thought you have! Lol

 

[Rift Zone]

Mmm... @Rift Zone - Explain the Big Bang Theory as best you can -everything I need to know and set up ideas you want me to know- keep in mind I may not know much at all about it so keep it detailed! And then explain Plasma Cosmology -everything I need to know and ideas you want me to know- and then tell me why you think Plasma Cosmology makes more sense, what this means: "The science behind that cosmology tells of a universe that exists independent of time." and where the Big Bang Theory is lacking. Tell me every thought you have! Lol

Anything that qualifies as a theory will make predictions. It's as simple as that. Thus far, String Theory remains philosophical/mathematical speculation. It will graduate to actual theory if it ever makes a prediction. It's relevant here because it's an attempt to reconcile Relativity, QM and BBT. Big Bang Theory (BBT) makes predictions! BBT is an actual theory. Now this is the important part!!! A theory worth a damn will make accurate predictions! It is that simple. A theory demonstrates it knows what it's talking about by teaching us about the universe! Relativity didn't get sent to the drawing board every time a new observation came up. Relativity told us where to look! We went looking and found it fit very well. Archaic Crust theory says if you decrease the volume of the globe continents are plotted on they would fit better. Not to mention it explains Lake Biakal and other features of Earth modern theory cannot even approach. So then, BBT has never made an accurate prediction! Never! Not once. It fails to describe the universe. It has had numerous revisions and it still fails. According to BBT, the universe was born about 13 Billion years ago. The problem with that was the structures in the universe are too complex to be built in such a short time. And they couldn't actually describe galaxy rotation and interaction (more on that in a moment). So dark matter was born. It helped with condensing matter well enough make large scale structures plausible and also did a better job of describing galactic rotation.

But it wasn't enough. Things didn't fit right so they developed an inflationary period. Now, the early moments of the universe include a period when everything flew apart at an exponential rate.

Okay, still not enough. So now we have dark energy because the whole dark matter approach is inconsistent with observation. Darkenergy is some sort of repulsive force, reverse of gravity.

First of all, none of this has ever been seen in nature. All of this amounts to epicycles just like in Plato's perfect crystalline spheres. I think the whole string thing is yet another epicycle. Dark matter, inflationary period, dark energy, strings... None of this has ever been observed in any fashion. We have no reason to believe any of it. All were created to patch deficiencies in an inherently faulty theory. They exist on paper alone to make some mathematical construct feel better about itself. Bbt can't make sense of the universe at all. It fails. It cannot account for what we see going on out there!

The reason why is simple. Big Bang Theory relies exclusively on gravitation to describe the universe. It doesn't pay attention to the other forces. It builds the universe exclusively from gravitation. It's no wonder it postulates "matter" that only has the property of gravitation to patch its ignorance. Gravitation is the weakest force. -By far, in a big way, it is the weakest fundamental force. Electromagnetism is 10^36 times stronger than gravitation. Ten to the thirty-six! That is a huge distinction!!!! 10^36 centimeters means many millions of lightyears. You cannot ignore electromagnetism when you produce theories of the universe! That's just lame. Guess what plasma interaction and behavior is governed by? -Rainbows, butterflies and a gold star if you guessed electromagnetism.

We know plasma exists. We see it. We see energy conduits, plasma filaments on extragalactic levels all over the place. Plasma is a fact of the universe. We know how it behaves. We know how strong it is. Its interactions on galactic scales are proven. Plasma physics actually describes the behavior of all things in the universe. If you put a simulation together with BBT approved parameters and try to get 2 spiral galaxies to interact (merge) the simulations will look nothing like what we observe in the universe. If you run the same simulation accounting for gravitation and plasma physics then the simulations look EXACTLY like what we find in the sky. Plasma Cosmology can actually explain everything about the universe.

The universe exists independent of time... We're going to get into denying parts of Relativity here, not certain how many plasma cosmologists would support this point of view. Thinking the universe is eternal is a common theme for Plasma Cosmology but why that is may differ from this: The universe exists entirely independent of time. Humans make a bigger dal out time than the universe does. lol Sad, but true! It's not a dimension, the universe doesn't move along it. Time exists within the universe, not the other way around. It's a property of the energy of the universe. I could define time if you like! I'd be happy to elaborate on any of this. =)

 

[DonTaushMe]

[MENTION=10289]Rift Zone[/MENTION] - K, so the Big Bang Theory is that everything kinda just banged itself into place via "-the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature" 10-20 billion years ago. What... how did it happen with the Plasma Cosmology?

 

[Rift Zone]

@Rift Zone - K, so the Big Bang Theory is that everything kinda just banged itself into place via "-the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperature" 10-20 billion years ago. What... how did it happen with the Plasma Cosmology?

Sorry about that. I get the impression I didn't explain BBT thoroughly enough. Yes, according to it, the universe was born in a primordial explosion out of nothing. There's some logical inconsistencies there! All this born from nothing? I have problems with that perspective. Also, time and space was allegedly created during the Big Bang. Thus, there was no "place" for the universe to start. Whatever BS place that could be imagined would exist without time so theres no opportunity for states to change. A universe being born must exist within time to accomplish such a feat. Rather, the math explains time was born within the universe. This is logically paradoxical.

As mentioned above, this universe is eternal! The universe exists independent of time. It's not a property of the universe. Nor is it a superstructure the universe travels through. Time is a property of matter/energy within the universe. So, the energy/matter within the universe has always been here. The property of time enables the universe's constitutes to evolve. The universe itself doesn't evolve! -again, it exists independent of time. This also relates to the Heat Death argument. The beauty of the universe's constitutes is that web of clusters and superclusters that make up our universe constantly spray matter and energy into the gaps. Over time scales far to big for us to imagine, that energy and matter will condense and form new stars and galaxies. They will eventually fill the voids and form new webs of clusters and superclusters while the existing ones wither. That's what evolution looks like in the largest scale possible.

 

[Eventhorizon]

Not my own idea but I saw a program once where they indicated everything that ever was or ever will be, already is. As we move though the universe, each moment is like a ...say car in the drive way. As you look at it very far away you cant make out what it is. As you move closer (our definition of time passing) you begin to make out details of the car. As you move closer more details. The idea is that the entire universe in all of its states, already exists. I always believe time was just a human labeling creation anyway. Humans like to name things so they named the apparent passing of events, "time."

 

[Rift Zone]

As you move closer (our definition of time passing)

Brillant! It looks like we completely agree on that one. The matter/energy in our universe has always been here! So in that way, everything that ever was or will be exists now. But things change! If we pieced together a video of the universe itself evolving, it would look much the same throughout time. We would watch galaxies themselves being born as the old ones give up their mass and energy into the voids. We could watch the web of the universe re-route its filaments to incorporate these new energy sources into the near universal energy network. But it would still be a web. The over all appearance of the universe is going to look much the same as eternity passes. So ya, in that way too, everything that ever was or will be exists now. Having said that, the possibilities are endless! Change in the universe is an expectation. Every now and then something truly remarkable might happen... Like humans. Impossible means contrary to the laws of physics. That gives us a lot of room! the possibilities for us are endless. We can do anything. Virtually everything amounts to a technical feat for us at this point. We could make galaxies do our bidding if we really wanted to. Anything is possible. In that way, the universe hasn't seen nothing yet. =)

Solid matter is an illusion. At our scale, it's a rather convincing illusion, but it is illusion none the less. When we think of atoms, we might have a tendency to think of little balls. We might think of something solid. We imagine it to be a thing, or a few things clumped together. It's nothing like that! If we could see an atomic nucleus in the every day sense of the word, at a comfortable scale we would not see "things". We would see energy. Imagine the schematic for the propagation of light. Waveforms writhing through eternity... Imagine rather, that the waveform isn't going anywhere. It's sitting still, writhing. "Particles" are a concentration of a lot of energy so imagine many, many waveforms there, writhing. It looks crazy. We should keep in mind electromagnetism is generated by particles' inherent structure and behavior. Particles themselves are likely to be mostly open space with concentrated waveforms osculating on all axis.

And this is time: Imagine that mess again. Now imagine that mess isn't writhing, that photon isn't propagating... That you took a picture of it or something. I think we would all agree that would represent an instance in time. Subsequent instances would be construed as propagation of time. Time is exactly that. Time is energy's capacity to transmute, it's ability to writhe, to propagate. It is no more complicated than that. Motion gives us time. It is not tied to anything else. The universe as a whole has no direct association with time. The existence of the universe did not bestow us with time, having energetic constitutes did. Conglomerations of mass within the universe are able to evolve because their constitutes are energetic. Humans make a bigger deal out of time than the universe does. The universe exists independent of time.

Also, a quick look at the properties of time along with a little conservation of energy will completely refute the notion of time travel. 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.

 

[Eventhorizon]

There is a hard scifi book called, "Ring" You should read it, I think you would enjoy it. At this point its a little out of date though.

http://www.amazon.com/Ring-Stephen-Baxter/dp/0061056944

 

[Rift Zone]

There is a hard scifi book called, "Ring" You should read it, I think you would enjoy it. At this point its a little out of date though.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0061056944/?tag=infjs-20

I don't read too much fiction... I'm kinda boring like that. =( The whole thing about reality being stranger than fiction holds true for me in some regard. I definetly find more captivation and intrigue in the natural dramas unfolding throughout the universe. Most works of fiction seem to invest in human drama. No problem with that at all but I'm already immersed in all that so it makes finding interest elsewhere easy for me.

Speaking of books, I have a recommendation! I grew up with all my heroes telling me about Big Bang theory. I had every reason to believe BBT was a reality of the universe. Then I saw a book that was titled "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner. My reaction was: WTF? Defend yourself! I picked it up and it became clear it was treating the topic in a legitimately scientific fashion so I bought it. As I read through it the concepts inspired a lot personal research so I was fairly well informed by the time I finished the book. Also by the time I finished the book, I had completely given up on the validity of Big Bang Theory. The book doesn't have any math in it so it's easy to follow. It's my first pick for anyone interested in knowing more about modern science.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I don't read too much fiction... I'm kinda boring like that. =( The whole thing about reality being stranger than fiction holds true for me in some regard. I definetly find more captivation and intrigue in the natural dramas unfolding throughout the universe. Most works of fiction seem to invest in human drama. No problem with that at all but I'm already immersed in all that so it makes finding interest elsewhere easy for me.

Speaking of books, I have a recommendation! I grew up with all my heroes telling me about Big Bang theory. I had every reason to believe BBT was a reality of the universe. Then I saw a book that was titled "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric J Lerner. My reaction was: WTF? Defend yourself! I picked it up and it became clear it was treating the topic in a legitimately scientific fashion so I bought it. As I read through it the concepts inspired a lot personal research so I was fairly well informed by the time I finished the book. Also by the time I finished the book, I had completely given up on the validity of Big Bang Theory. The book doesn't have any math in it so it's easy to follow. It's my first pick for anyone interested in knowing more about modern science.

And yet the imagination is what leads us to new ways of thinking about things. You certainly dont have to read it. This particular book took a lot of the extreme theorys of the day and bound them into a story. It even had me contemplating things I had never thought about. Of which there are few.

 

[DonTaushMe]

I love it when you recommend books [MENTION=8603]Eventhorizon[/MENTION].

K so, [MENTION=10289]Rift Zone[/MENTION], time -totally agree with you- didn't know people were actually seriously looking into time travel though. I mean yeah it's a fun idea, but it can never actually happen. Do people you talk to in the science world really make such a big deal out of time? Cause that's just very irrational... and concerning :/

And you said this: "The beauty of the universe's constitutes is that web of clusters and superclusters that make up our universe constantly spray matter and energy into the gaps. Over time scales far to big for us to imagine, that energy and matter will condense and form new stars and galaxies." -So is that the idea behind Plasma Cosmology? That Plasma matter has been floating through space, combining and conforming to each other, making more solid mass and just really... making up the universe? I say this with a winching face and many hand gestures lol I don't know how to articulate it any better. I mean I agree with that, completely. I don't believe the universe just suddenly exploded and formed itself, that doesn't make any sense. What is that thing said in chemistry class? Mass cannot be created or destroyed..? Was it mass or matter? Something with an M. So by that law in itself it makes little to no sense that the universe was created out of nothing in the BBT which you are explaining to me, to that I agree.

I'm gonna go Google pictures of plasma... I agree with you on everything you've said cause it really just makes sense. I don't understand how scientists would think differently. I haven't really kept up with the social concession of how the universe was made though I'd think I'd have a problem with it if they told me what you're telling me about the BBT and then said "Believe it!" Lol...

 

[Rift Zone]

And yet the imagination is what leads us to new ways of thinking about things. You certainly dont have to read it. This particular book took a lot of the extreme theorys of the day and bound them into a story. It even had me contemplating things I had never thought about. Of which there are few.

So very true. Imagination is important on so many levels. And the benefit of exploring different perspectives shouldn't be underestimated. You're right about all of that. Sorry for treating your suggestion so poorly. I mean no disrespect. I have my own imagination to contend with! I don't need others making matters worse for me! =) On a more serious note, I have a hard time getting through most novels. I've made many serious attempts and it's usually not compelling. I'm more of a lab rat. Geek'n out on some facet of nature is entertainment in my world.

 

[Rift Zone]

I love it when you recommend books @Eventhorizon.

K so, @Rift Zone, time -totally agree with you- didn't know people were actually seriously looking into time travel though. I mean yeah it's a fun idea, but it can never actually happen. Do people you talk to in the science world really make such a big deal out of time? Cause that's just very irrational... and concerning :/

And you said this: "The beauty of the universe's constitutes is that web of clusters and superclusters that make up our universe constantly spray matter and energy into the gaps. Over time scales far to big for us to imagine, that energy and matter will condense and form new stars and galaxies." -So is that the idea behind Plasma Cosmology? That Plasma matter has been floating through space, combining and conforming to each other, making more solid mass and just really... making up the universe? I say this with a winching face and many hand gestures lol I don't know how to articulate it any better. I mean I agree with that, completely. I don't believe the universe just suddenly exploded and formed itself, that doesn't make any sense. What is that thing said in chemistry class? Mass cannot be created or destroyed..? Was it mass or matter? Something with an M. So by that law in itself it makes little to no sense that the universe was created out of nothing in the BBT which you are explaining to me, to that I agree.

I'm gonna go Google pictures of plasma... I agree with you on everything you've said cause it really just makes sense. I don't understand how scientists would think differently. I haven't really kept up with the social concession of how the universe was made though I'd think I'd have a problem with it if they told me what you're telling me about the BBT and then said "Believe it!" Lol...

Hi ya!

Conservation of energy. Yep! That's right! No ex nihilo in this universe. =)

The image above is a computer simulation running on plasma physics. I found it here:http://www.plasma-universe.com/Galaxy_formation I found the image below by running a search for "plasma galaxy simulation". If you dig up "plasma physics" "Hannes Alfvén" "plasma cosmology" and "Anthony Peratt" you could find out much more about plasma cosmology.

Time travel is actually permitted in the laws of Relativity so scientific speculation about it is not too far out of line. Though most agree the paradoxes keep it unlikely. Time is supposed to be a dimension of the universe, part of its inherent structure. From a modern science stand point, ya, time is a much bigger deal than what this impression leaves. Of course, They have no idea what time really amounts to. No one really knows what times is... Well, except for us. =)

Yep, that's plasma cosmology for ya! E=mc^2 is true not because they can "convert" from one form to the other. They never change form! Light and particles are essentially the same thing, made of the same stuff, behaving in much the same manner. Particles are just a greater concentration of energy that has stabilized in mutual association. Lightning makes antimatter in our atmosphere! Matter will readily disassociate from particle form into pure energy when conditions are right. Likewise, it will reorganize back into matter just as easily. Lightning making antimatter in the atmosphere is a clear demonstration of this. So we have particles being recycled on that level all the time.

Then there's atomic nuclei. Hydrogen in our star gets turned into helium for energy. Our star isn't going to get much further than that but bigger ones can take that helium and burn it into carbon and oxygen silicon... Um, I forget the proper sequence for nucleosysnthesis. Anyway, if they get to iron, they are screwed. Iron is the most stable of all atomic nuclei. Getting it to the next level take out more energy than it gives so stars die when they get too much iron in their core. They often collapse and turn into neutron stars. Well, neutron stars cool and the second law of thermodynamics assures they will ultimately crumble away like a pile of silt in the wind.

Or you can get a bigger neutron star that's being fed more mass than the neutrons can handle... Then you turn it into a quasar, supernova, laser, whatever. Any supermassive neutron star would do this! Get big enough and the core would disassociate the energy from particles and keep it in a state of resonance just like a laser does to atoms. The pure energy and particles that escape from that structure are also proven recycling centers for the universe! That's why we dont have a bunch of heavy atoms all over the place. Of course, if it lights that fire when it's too small to handle it, Poof! That thing will go off like a firecracker and blow itself mostly to bits -supernovae. And I think that sets the universal stage well. =) That is indeed plasma cosmology in a nutshell.

 

[Jack]

Rift, those are a lot of interesting positions, but could you give me a brief bit of meta-narrative about how the current state of our universe came to be according to your plasma cosmology? Or would you say things are more or less as they are now into eternity past?

Also, do you mind breaking down the discussion surrounding your divergences from the mainstream into terms for dummies who aren't that schooled in cosmology? I hate to burst your bubble if you were hoping for a great technical discussion, but my focus in school was mainly biology.

When you do that, could you include your interpretation of the cosmological red shift, and universal background radiation?

Lastly, here's an odd question that it's ok if you don't know or just think it's weird, but... where are all the aliens from eternity past? After all, I kind of would assume we'd not be the first intelligent beings in eternity. Do you think it would just be that we haven't found them yet?


A few random responses:

Conservation of energy. Yep! That's right! No ex nihilo in this universe. =)

Well technically, if you're talking about the big bang, the universe has to be around before it's particular rules are active, so I think that might not count.

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.

Did you ever pursue publication in peer-reviewed technical journals? I know they generally tend to be one-theory dominated, and might be a bit of a hassle, but if you really have the empirical ammunition to defend your position, you might get a small following, and create some change.

On the other hand, you might end up like me, who passed up on 2 chances to perform particular experiments and publish them regarding some of my ideas, and each time someone else did it about a year later and made headlines in science magazines.

 

[Rift Zone]

[MENTION=2540]Jack[/MENTION],

This is what the large scale structure of the universe looks like... Well, first a slice of a map we've drawn up:

and now overview:

The above images are computer generated but they're good approximations for the over all structure of the universe. Every data point in those images are supposed to be galaxies. Being that the universe is eternal and the behavior of matter/energy/plasma will always have matter organize in a similar fashion, I strongly suspect the filamentary web like structure we see today will always persist. As I was telling DonTaushMe above, the webs will change over time as galaxies die and new galaxies are born in the voids. The current state of the universe is not wholly different than any other state.

I'd be happy to explain anything you'd like! You're gonna have to give me better direction than that however! =) How about a place to start? What would you like me to elaborate on?

NGC 7603:

That is a picture of 4 quasars. Those are their redshift values. Some of those objects "should" be seperaged by as much as 400 million light years, according to Hubble Law. It's not news to Hubble:

It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination."

For one, Hubble Law is wrong. Red shifts could be a lot of things. Re-emission? It's conceivable interactions with gravitational fields in transit could weaken radiation. Not sure about that one. Doppler effect is certainly part of the story, just not all of it. Background radiation could also be re-emission. I actually favor the idea that the variance in background radiation is a signatures from older webs that existed before the time of our galaxy. I don't know though. There are a lot of plausible explanations and the likelyhood is there are many answers/causes.

Who's to say aliens haven't visited us? =)

Ex nihilo... Hmm. I'm still not so sure. We can give the universe a place of origin: within the cosmos! Simple enough, but I still have problems with time. Time, under current description, was born along with space during the Big Bang. So that still leaves us with a cosmos without time. How can anything happen without time? Sparking the birth of a universe under such conditions seems iffy.

The only thing I can prove now is Archaic Crust Theory. I need more math skills to get the rest down on paper. When I get there, I'll be sure to send my proofs out to the right people/institutions.

Ya, its dirty out there! Sorry to hear that's how it went for you. That's the beauty of being soo fringe, nobody's paying attention me. =)