Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe,
brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
The term "crisis in cosmology" has been used
so routinely over the last couple of decades,
I have to wonder if its significance is
beginning to dull in the public consciousness.
When science journalists use the term, they're
generally describing the countless scientific discoveries that contradict
or undermine Big Bang cosmology.
Of course, for decades now, numerous scientific studies have shown an
apparent discordancy between the so-called expansion rate in the
"early universe" after the hypothetical Big Bang,
and the expansion rate in the "later universe."
Well, just in the last couple of weeks, the Keck
Observatory issued a press release reporting the most reliable verification
to date that the discordancy is real, and the rate of acceleration of the
universe's expansion is too great for standard cosmology to explain.
But of course, the crisis in cosmology goes much
deeper than problems with the expanding universe.
It seems that just about every week we hear about the existence of
objects, from stars to galaxies to quasars to super clusters, as well as a
host of celestial phenomena that "can't exist in the Big Bang universe."
And even more fundamentally, they shouldn't exist in a
universe where gravity, and gravity alone, dominates.
If you've followed this series, you've seen reports on these
discoveries ad nauseam, and we'll be exploring several of these specific
discoveries as we continue in this new discussion.
So today, we're going to be discussing all of this and more with the
chief science advisor to The Thunderbolts Project, Wal Thornhill.
I can tell you at the outset that this is going to be at least a two part or even
a three part presentation, because for several
months now, there have been too many blockbuster discoveries, for us to
adequately cover, which are incredibly
important for the Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology.
But before we begin addressing these items one by one, I'd
like us to begin with a discussion on the very foundations of Big Bang
cosmology, to clarify some essential distinctions between scientific fact and
scientific theory, what is known versus what is believed.
For instance, New Scientist recently published the
collection "seventeen more things you need to understand" in which it outlines
what it describes as "six principles of physics" and again, the
reader might assume that each of these principles
is an established fact or a "law of physics."
Wal, you introduced me to this New Scientist
piece, so why don't you begin by explaining what you think it reveals
about the current state of cosmology and the culture of science.
Yeah, that New Scientist special starts off with the
first chapters on mathematics, instead of physics.
You would think that if you're talking about cosmology, the
first thing you need to talk about is the model, the cosmological model, the
physical model, before you start talking about
the mathematics that you're going to apply.
They got sort of backwards, you know, the cart before the horse.
And then, the very second one talks about the Big Bang.
The very nature of the Big Bang should sound alarm bells because, what we
observe in the universe is pretty much a balance.
The solar system works like clockwork, there's no gravitational
explanation for the beauty of spiral galaxies and yet they seem to be a
standard form of galaxies...
So just the very nature of the observations suggests
that using an explosion, something equivalent to an explosion, a Big Bang in
the beginning, is something desperately wrong, and as one philosopher
wrote and I read just recently, he said that only an idiot would design a
universe with an unbalanced force, and gravity is an unbalanced force, it's only
ever attractive, it's never repulsive according to our
experience on Earth, but then we extrapolate our experience on Earth out
into the deep space, and it doesn't work.
It only works within the solar system.
But even then, when you go back to Newton, Newton also considered that gravity was
a balanced force, he looked at it as a repulsive force as well.
And it does work, but nobody could figure out just how that might be physically.
And so, that's been ignored ever since.
It wasn't until Halton Arp came along and showed that his
balanced universe absolutely needed a balanced force, gravity must be a
repulsive force on the cosmic scale.
And that was one of the key issues that the Electric Universe had to deal with, because
how can we explain gravity as a balanced force, and as soon as you do that, all of
the requirements for a big bang go away, you don't need anything to separate
matter in the beginning, because the result of that separation is either
that all falls back together again, or it all continues to expand forever.
It's almost impossible to have it just expand
to a certain point and then sit there.
So this was, you know, a major problem with the
Big Bang Theory right from the very beginning.
The other thing is that, all of the lack of real physics
in describing of how the Big Bang originated.
For instance, if you look at Wiki, that infamous source of information,
it was created from a singularity which was described
as a very hot, small and dense, super force.
In other words, the mix of four fundamental
forces with no stars, atoms, form or structure.
This is physically meaningless.
Singularity is, by the very definition, involve the concept
of infinity, which isn't a number.
So you can't add, subtract, multiply, or divide
by infinity and come up with a number other
than zero, and that only as an approximation in the case of division.
Singularities in a model are clear evidence that the model has failed.
So right at the very fundamental level we're not doing physics, and then again
we look at Wiki's explanation: to be hot requires energetic particles, that's how
we measure heat, it's a measure of the kinetic energy of particles.
That means that the singularity had to have the matter there already in this
infinitely small point in space, right?
This schoolboy howler results from energy being undefined in modern physics.
There is no such thing as pure energy, it's always in relation to matter.
It's a gaping hole dug by Einstein and his relativity theory, where any
arbitrarily moving observer can be considered at rest at the center of the
universe, in other words you've all got your own, you're all at the center of your
own universe and that's obvious nonsense, because
movement of any of these observers is a form of energy.
So Einstein removed the absolute reference frame of the
fixed stars, that is the rest of the universe, which was required by all the
great physicists of the preceding centuries, including Newton.
And then they talk about this singularity being
small, but that's meaningless, compared to what?
It's a concept you can get by dividing any number by infinity.
Then it goes on, it assumes there are four fundamental forces.
Well, this is a product of not understanding the physics
in the first place.
The Electric Universe, on the other hand, needs only one, the electric force, and
then magnetism and gravity and the nuclear forces are all described in
terms of the response of orbiting matter to an external electric force, or in the
case of an atom, the internal electric force
if the nucleus is offset from the center.
And then, the last thing that it talks about is this force being dense.
Now, any force requires the presence of matter before the Big Bang, so once again,
we've got matter having to be there before the Big Bang, and how can a force be dense?
Matter can be dense, a force only has meaning in the presence of
matter, which again isn't there before creation.
If it were, the singularity would be a black hole, one of those
imaginary black holes from which matter can't escape, so that it could never bang.
And if you look at the Electric Universe over the past decade or so, and
Steve Crothers' analysis of the mathematics,
the mathematics doesn't work either.
It uses a pseudo tensor which in Steve's words is just a meaningless jumble of
symbols, it has no physical significance.
The Big Bang is sheer nonsense, it has nothing to do with real science.
What started the worship of an expanding universe?
In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that for fairly local galaxies in his
field of view, the fainter they are, the higher their redshift--assumed to be due
to the Doppler effect, in other words, the change in frequency of a signal, as it
recedes from you, drops in frequency, and that's a redshift in light.
Anyway, Hubble himself remained unconvinced that the
Doppler effect correctly explained his observations.
He felt that the science underpinning this physical model
was lacking, there's something else involved.
It was left up to Halton Arp, who worked at one point with Hubble, to
discover intrinsic redshift which means that the objects themselves have a
different energy, a lower energy which means that both the particles within
each atom, the protons and the electrons, have a different mass, slightly lower, and
that difference in mass means that the frequency of light that they emit will
be shifted towards the red end of the spectrum.
It's as simple as that.
We just assume, we make measurements of the
mass of the proton, the mass of the electron
in laboratories on Earth and then put it in a physics standards manual and
everyone assumes it's the same throughout the universe.
It's merely an assumption, and in the case of the
redshift, the very fact that Halton Arp was able to find that it was quantized,
in other words this is a subatomic effect, this is a quantum effect, and we
observe it in galactic scale objects; means that the whole underpinning of
particle physics, as well, is based on nonsensical ideas.
This idea that the quantum theory only applies to the atomic and
subatomic scale is incorrect, so trying to find the answers to everything through
particle physics and cosmology fails on that very foundation.
The New Scientist article which is supposed to be
giving us answers to the 17 big questions, when
it comes to cosmology, it talks about the principles of physics.
Now, one of the principles of physics that is
crucial is, that you cannot create or annihilate
matter because that constitutes a miracle.
We have no idea how matter is constructed or how you would go about
constructing it, what the constituent parts are, and what happens if you have
discombobulate, you know, a proton or electron, what would these particles be
and where would they go, how would we detect them?
None of this is answered.
When we come to what the New Scientist puts forward as the six principles of
physics, none of them have anything to do with this basic problem.
The first one says, "the speed of light is a constant."
Who says so?
When we measure the speed of light, it's always in a medium and to say,
as Einstein did, that there is no ether in the vacuum of space, is sheer nonsense.
You cannot transmit an electromagnetic signal through nothing, it has to be a
polarizable medium, and we measure the polarizable medium and give it capacity,
you know, dielectric properties which is what's needed.
So there is an ether, the speed of light we know, depends on the density of the
ether that it's traveling through, what its speed would be.
The speed of light is not a constant, and this
was made crystal clear when Rupert Sheldrake
spoke to us at one of our conferences, a few years ago, and he pointed out that
it's acknowledged that when they measured the speed of light, it varied.
So what's been done, they now define the meter, the measurement of distance, in
terms of the speed of light and made it a constant, they've fixed it.
This is unscientific and, in fact, can lead to serious problems.
The second item is the equivalence principle, the
equivalence between the sensation of gravity and
the sensation of being accelerated in a lift.
They are not equivalent.
Gravity is, despite the formula which talks about a center of
gravity, is an effective force between all matter in the universe.
So in the case of the Earth, that's distributed
throughout the volume of the Earth.
So the force on a person accelerating away from the Earth will change, it will be
different to what you would experience in an elevator, they are not equivalent.
The cosmological principle is just another assumption based on observation
and it may or may not be true.
When you look at Halton Arp's different perspective on the universe, we are only
a small part of the universe that is of unknown age and unknown extent, so all we
can say is that in our local visible universe, part of the universe, the
cosmological principle appears to hold, but there is a lot of structure,
the structure is unexpected that is, the filamentary structure of the
universe is not expected in the gravitational model, unless you add dark
matter and all sorts of other magical fairy dust.
But in the electrical model that is absolutely necessary because of
the formation of stars and galaxies along
cosmological Birkeland current filaments.
So the filamentary nature is actually prima facie evidence that the
Electrical Universe model is correct.
Quantization is the next one, number four, and of course, quantum theory, as Richard
Feynman famously said, nobody understands it, and that is correct.
Nobody understands it because there is no physical model underpinning it.
The Electric Universe deals with that in terms of
resonant behavior of structured subatomic particles.
The Electric Universe merely repeats the pattern of
the atom, because they're closest together in scale, as an orbital system, and repeats
that for the electron and the proton and says that they're orbital systems as well,
and therefore they will exchange energy in discrete resonant ways.
You can only exchange energy between stable orbits.
The other thing is that the foundational work for these stable orbits comes from
Wilhelm Weber, 150 years ago, so the foundations
of the Electric Universe are that old.
It's just that no one was paying attention at the time, "his
work was in German;" although Faraday and Maxwell knew about it, they preferred
their field theories to ones which involved real particles and an
instantaneous electric force.
But of course, this is a real physical
model, this is one that relies on physics.
Quantum theory of Niels Bohr is a statistical theory, in other words,
anything is possible.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics," you can dream of anything you like, and this
is where the uncertainty principle comes from; because it's a statistical model,
you can be uncertain about where a particle is and what it's doing.
In the electrical model, there are real particles in real space in real time, the
whole thing remains coherent, simply because we're dealing with real time.
None of this relativity nonsense of malleable clocks and distances.
The wave-particle duality comes about also
from this problem of not understanding matter
interactions at this structured subatomic level, because there is no such
thing as a photon, you cannot have a particle with no mass which is what the
photon is defined as being, traveling at the speed of light.
Now, light is a wave phenomenon, but the particles involved in
that wave are communicating with one another instantaneously, so all of these
strange so-called nonlocality and spooky quantum effects are just the order of
the day in the electrical model of Wilhelm Weber and particle interactions.
He also showed that there are stable orbits
in those electrodynamic interactions.
It has nothing to do with electrostatics, it's electrodynamic.
Not one of these six items is a fundamental principle of physics.
So you start from that basis, you've got nowhere to go
really, they're just stories that have been made up to try and make it appear
as though we have a cosmology at present.
Modern cosmology is not science, it's merely a story and it gets more and more
complicated as time goes on.
Stay tuned for part 2