Today, we continue our exploration of the incredible revelations provided by the
James Webb Space Telescope and its far-reaching ramifications for the future of cosmology. I think it's
appropriate to begin with a reminder to viewers of the in-depth analysis offered by physicist Wal Thornhill, both before
and after the first public release of the images that the telescope has obtained. An especially important point
was made on the expected revelations with regard to cosmological redshift. Of course the standard interpretation is
that cosmological redshift is a phenomenon due to the expansion of spacetime itself. In contrast, the
Electric Universe has always subscribed to Halton Arp’s thesis which proposed that redshift is intrinsic and not due
to an expanding universe. As noted many times here, in Halton Arp’s thesis, quasars
are ejected from Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) and can evolve into companion galaxies. In that case, the highly redshifted
objects indicate their youthfulness. In other words, when astrophysicists view what they perceive as the most distant
objects ever observed, they would do well to consider the warning that appears on
a car's rearview mirror, ‘objects may be closer than they appear’. The evidence for this, which Arp and other astronomers
began presenting several decades ago, includes quote ‘impossible connections’ between high and low redshift objects.
That is to say, redshift cannot be due to a modification of the light on its journey to Earth. Wal highlighted an
especially powerful recent affirmation of this evidence from the JWST images. As he explained in an in-depth analysis on
the influence of cosmic dust on the visibility of celestial objects in astronomical images, the JWST has
confirmed as Arp contended, that this image of Stephan’s Quintet clearly shows a quasar whose redshift in standard
reasoning places it at 10 billion light years from our perspective on Earth in front of the Galaxy NGC
7319 whose redshift places it only a few hundred million light years away. The Electric Universe and plasma cosmology
recognized the reason astronomers tell us that roughly 96% of the visible universe is composed of invisible dark stuff. It
is because purely gravitational models cannot explain what is actually observed: galaxies are electromagnetic phenomena
demonstrated for decades by plasma cosmologists in the laboratory and in particle-cell simulations on a
supercomputer. Dark matter and dark energy have never been proven and from our perspective they do not exist, a
position that has only been reaffirmed by ever finer technological data. Our position is that there was no Big Bang.
The universe is of unknown age and extent and is possibly infinite. We're now in the second year of hearing
reports of the discovery of galaxies in the so-called ‘early universe’ which are not merely problematic but quote
’impossible’ in standard Big Bang cosmology. As we've previously discussed, the overabundance of mature galaxies at
the so-called ‘dawn of time’ has even led to at least one scientific paper proposing that the hypothetical age of
the universe be nearly doubled. This is a fulfillment of Wal Thornhill’s depressing yet realistic, prediction that
astronomers would respond to the falsification of Big Bang Theory by simply adding onto it additional
epicycles. It is from that perspective that we began our exploration of yet another blockbuster discovery thanks to
the James Webb Space Telescope. On February 14, 2024 the Swinburne University of Technology issued a press
release entitled, “Beyond what's possible: New JWST observations unearth mysterious
ancient galaxy.” The report begins, “Our understanding of how galaxies form and the nature of dark matter could be
completely upended after new observations of a stellar population bigger than the Milky Way from more than
11 billion years ago that should not exist.” “A paper published today in Nature details findings using new data from the
James Webb Space Telescope. The results find that a massive Galaxy in the early Universe - observed 11.5 billion years ago
(a cosmic redshift of 3.2) has an extremely old population of stars formed much earlier - 1.5 billion years earlier
in time (a redshift of around 11). The observation upends current modeling, as not enough dark matter has built up in
sufficient concentrations to seed their formation.” Consider now the remarks of associate professor Claudia Lagos, who
contributed to the effort of the dark matter modeling for the scientific study. She states, “Galaxy formation is in large
part dictated by how dark matter concentrates. Having these extremely massive galaxies so early in the
universe is posing significant challenges to our standard model of cosmology. This is because we don't think
such massive dark matter structures as to host these massive galaxies have had time yet to form. More observations are
needed to understand how common these galaxies may be and to help us understand how truly massive these
galaxies are.” At this point I'd like to take a moment and encourage the viewers to join me in taking a step back from
the drama and attempt to see the forest for the trees. Two weeks ago, on this channel I discussed the recent discovery
of a star whose chemical composition was characterized as “impossible” by the scientists who discovered it. Which is to
say it can't be explained by the standard model of star formation. Unfortunately, the explanation offered
for the star's existence may be equally improbable, a fact acknowledged by the scientists who offered it. You see the
scientists proposed that a massive ancient star, 50 to 80 times the mass of the Sun, exploded as a supernova shortly
after the dawn of the universe, providing the baffling soup of elements out of which a subsequent quote ‘impossible’ star
formed. The problem is stars of that size should not go supernova in standard astronomy, but rather they are expected
to collapse into black holes. That kind of self-contradiction in ad hoc theories is not new to longtime viewers
of this series. What will it take for institutionalized science to consider entirely new theories of star and galaxy
formation? Ones which do not include an evolutionary timeline beginning with a physics-defying creation event called
the Big Bang. An insight into that question is provided by the astronomer V. Axel Firsoff who stated, “...my impression has
been that much of what Thomas Kuhn has called ‘normal science’ has degenerated into mindless support of orthodoxy and
the so-called ‘consensus of opinion’ which is arrived at by a process of one scientist repeating what another has
said in a kind of mirror-gallery regression for the fear of falling out with his or her colleagues. In the end
nobody seems to know how this consensus has originated, but anything that is out of step is ruthlessly suppressed.” In my
opinion it seems as if the concept of burden of proof in cosmology has been inverted. We've all heard the comment
from self-styled skeptics that quote ”extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.” However, a more [correct] axiom describing modern cosmology, and in fact much of the theoretical sciences, might
be, “unpopular claims require extraordinary evidence, popular claims on the other hand only seem to require a
show of hands.” There is no direct proof that dark matter exists. Valuable resources have been spent on the search
for dark matter, and with investigators coming up empty- handed, the number of professional scientists who have
suggested giving up the fruitless chase has continued to grow. In contrast, the other day Dr. Brian Keating posted a
video entitled, “What if we detect dark matter?” I think a more rational question might be, “Why should any further
resources, including taxpayer dollars be expended on the continued search?” How large a body of disproof is required
for institutionalized science to abandon this discredited, yet still very popular extraordinary claim?
Institutionalized science cannot claim that alternatives to dark matter that are worthy of exploration do not exist.
Of course this goes beyond the well-known modified Newtonian Dynamics. Longtime viewers of this channel surely
remember retired Professor Dr. Donald Scott's mathematical modeling of a Birkeland current which is represented
visually as counter-rotating cylindrical shells. Dr. Scott compared the measured stellar velocity profiles in the arms of
spiral galaxies with a predicted profile of a Birkeland current. Here is a clip from a more recent Thunderbolts
interview of Dr. Scott where he discusses his ongoing efforts to explore this hypothesis: “Remember that the typical
stellar velocity profile in a galaxy - a plot of the star’s velocity as a function of its radius R, how far out it is from
the galaxy center - has been totally baffling to astrophysicists. Actually, they typically
look like a plot of the function the square root of R. This shape cannot be explained by Newtonian physics and
almost all astrophysicists deny that electrical effects could possibly produce any of what we see in the cosmos.
So that's why astronomers like Vera Rubin and her colleagues postulated the existence of dark missing matter in the
1940s. Their repeated unsuccessful attempts to explain this rotation of those stars is what set astronomers off
on their decades-old quest to find dark matter. So, I wondered if the plot of the rotation speed of the plasma in my
model Birkeland current might be similar to the ones that baffled those astronomers. I set out to determine what
that velocity profile might be. My model yields information about the magnetic field strength and the current density
in a Birkeland current, but it doesn't directly yield any information about the velocity of the charges that make up
those currents. The key to determining the velocity of the stream of charged particles in a Birkeland current was the
realization that the current density in any plasma has two components - the charge density and the velocity of those
charges. The charge density is how much charge you have per cubic meter, and the velocity of course is how many meters
per second does that box of charges travel with. Therefore, if we know any two of these three quantities J, rho and v,
we can find the third one. We obviously know from historical astronomical observations what the typical velocity
profile of stars within a galaxy looks like, and it's approximately the square
root of R. And we know from the equations of my model that the current density J varies with radial distance R out from
the BC's (that is, the Birkeland current’s) central axis as 1/(square root of R). So, I was able to solve for the
third quantity. Not very hard - the charge density rho that must exist inside my model BC using all this data (the data
from Galaxy NGC 1620) it turns out to be a simple inverse relationship 1/R. This clearly
demonstrates that an electrical process exists that can produce the heretofore inexplicable stellar velocities that
prompted astronomers to search for dark matter in the first place.” If both star and galaxy formation are electromagnetic
phenomena, then the need for a universe that is 96% dark disappears. And if cosmological redshift is intrinsic to
celestial objects, there is no expanding universe and there was no Big Bang. As Wal Thornhill always stated, “there is no
need for space science to compete with the creation myths of the world's religions.” Now, I would like to take a
moment and speak primarily as a human being. Last year, we all lost our friend, colleague and mentor who was the leading
voice on the Electric Universe theory and a source of well-earned knowledge and wisdom on an incredible range of
issues, all vital to human life. Wal was not a science critic, but a science explorer and he recognized the need for
all scientists to go beyond the narrow range of specialization that tends to dominate a professional scientist's life,
to study every arena relevant to the question, what does it mean to be human? As Wal stated countless times, any
cosmology that simply ignores that question has no chance for real success. Wal didn't advocate for rebellion or
non-conformity for its own sake. He didn't see glory in anti-authority heuristics that simply seek to tear down
scientific orthodoxy, rather than developing coherent, credible alternatives. Above and beyond all else,
he simply wanted to know the truth and inspire others to join him in the search. What does it mean to be human? It's a
question with an infinite number of possible answers. But when it comes to our understanding of the universe and
our place in it, I think we can agree that nothing is more important than personal intellectual
responsibility. In our Electric Universe community I've always been interested to note that the majority of contributors
describe their intellectual journey as personally transformative. Many found in the EU a
basis to question entire lifetimes of conditioning both religious and academic. Wal once told me that his
favorite film was Dead Poets Society. In that movie Robin Williams plays a highly inventive unorthodox and inspirational
teacher at a private school who above all else encourages his students to develop a personal intellectual agency,
to have the courage to think for themselves, even in the face of extraordinary external pressures. The end
of the film is one of the most powerful in cinematic history. As the defrocked teacher is exiting his classroom for the
final time a number of his students, though not all, stand on their desks literally turning their backs to the
bellowing headmaster in honor of their true educator. In and of itself, turning one's back to the decrees of authority
may not mean anything, but affirming one's right and ability to do so means everything. Far beyond any scientific
questions I saw demonstrated through Wal Thornhill the potential for understanding, for sanity, and for real
greatness that exists in every human being. It is a form of self-betrayal to
deny that potential in oneself and in others. To briefly quote Charles Bukowski, “Your life is your life. Don't
let it be clubbed into dank submission. You are marvelous. The gods wait to delight in you.”
[Music]