Big Bang and Relativity are overturned by the reality of the plasma-electromagnetic universe
Plasma, the aether and electromagnetism offer a series of disproofs of the standard models of physics and cosmology. Rarely discussed.
“Among the earliest predictions about the morphology of the universe is that it be filamentary (Alfven, 1950). This prediction follows from the fact that volume wise, the universe is 99.999% matter in the plasma state. For the most part, plasma consists of particles at high temperatures, i.e. an energetic state…the volume of plasma is inhomogeneous.”
(Anthony Peratt, ‘Plasma and the Universe’, Astrophysics & Space Science, 1995, 227:97)
The aether exists. Plasma is a part of this aether. Most of the universe might be composed of plasma. When the thin-armed wizards and necromancers offer incantations and sacrifices to various gods including ‘dark matter’, do they not mean plasma and the aether?
In the previous post we stated that the plasma-electromagnetic universe disproves Relativity and the Biggest of the Bangs. Given the elastic-ontological and philosophical nature of Relativity and the Big Bang, this statement needs more explication.
The Peratt quote above is from a plasma physicist. For over 30 years Peratt has investigated plasma and filaments. Mainstream science now grudgingly accepts they exist. However, the Big Bang does not support ‘filamentary’ creations in space.
In plasma physics, a filament describes a high-density area of plasma, witnessed as an elongated and thin structure carrying an electric current and constrained by magnetic fields. These can be observed and analysed. They have been known to exist since the 1920s.
The Bang and Plasma
The standard cosmological model has never referenced plasma or electric energy. In the quote above, Peratt states that most of the matter in the universe is electro-magnetic plasma (charged ions and free electrons). This is not what the Big Bang predicts.
First and foremost, the Big Bang and Relativity are based on gravity. This is not true of the plasma universe. The plasma universe is based on electro-magnetic energy. We can list the 3 main pillars of the Big Bang and Einstein’s philosophies and see how different they are to the plasma (aether) view of the universe:
1. Big Bang: The universe had a beginning and the only naturalistic explanation is that matter somehow coalesced into a small egg and exploded, creating the cosmos, galaxies, planets, all elements and life. This explosion resulted in an expanding universe. The universe is still expanding due this creation event.
2. Big Bang: The total abundance of ‘light elements’ namely helium, lithium and hydrogen along with deuterium, which is an isotope of hydrogen, give credence to an explosion. In this account, hydrogen accounts for roughly ¾ of all mass, helium below ¼, with deuterium, lithium and heavier elements constituting the remainder. This is termed ‘cosmic nucleosynthesis’. (It sounds intimidating but it is also incorrect, see below).
3. Big Bang: Cosmic Background Radiation (or CMB) defined as electromagnetic radiation filling the universe is declared to be a residual effect of the initial explosion from 13.8 billion years ago. This assumes a cooling from the original creation event, entailing that the background radiation is in the microwave region of the electromagnetic spectrum. CMB is taken as the signal proof of Banging, (Yet as many posts on here prove, CMB actually disproves the Big Bang, see here, here, here, here, here, for starters, also below).
Buttressing these 3 pillars are other doctrines built around gravity and conceptions of space, which provide the scaffolding for an entire framework:
4. Gravity is the main force in the universe and Newton’s original observations and calculations, whilst accurate do not fully support what is seen, and are fractionally inaccurate.
5. The formation of large-scale structures can only occur through the gravitational collapse of matter.
6. Einstein’s theory of gravity, is simply a geometrical expression. This imagines that gravity is a wave from unknown sources within a curved (ridiculous) space-time dimensional fusion. If this is false, and it most certainly is, the entire edifice collapses.
7. Space and time are somehow merged, yet provide a medium for gravitational attraction to occur (never proven, not even in a lab), making time and absolute space relative.
8. Dark matter is invoked as a category to explain the 99.99% of matter left out of the Big Bang and Relativity (Do they mean plasma and the aether?)
9. Space is a ‘vacuum’, empty, a void of nothingness. The aether does not exist. There is no medium needed. (This is absurd of course and wrong.)
The Big Bang and Relativity models fail to describe reality or what is observed. It has nothing to say about an electric, energy filled universe.
Anisotropy, Steady States
If the Big Bang and an expansion from a central point did occur, there should be a ‘smoothness’ in space. There should be a similarity in matter, temperature and structure. But this is not what is observed. Over 109 galaxies are strung out across walls and sheets and shot through with massive voids of emptiness. We see galaxies appearing from nowhere, galaxies moving away, galaxies moving closer, galaxies forming in distinct and unique patterns. ‘Child’ galaxies seem to be older than the parent. Galaxies are evident which appear to be ‘older than the universe’. It is a bubbling hot spring of chaos and disorganisation (Kanipe, in Peratt, 1995, p. 114-117).
The Big Bang cannot explain this chaos, nor the formation of galaxies and stars given that 99% or more of material is admittedly ‘plasma’. ‘Cold Dark Matter’ is usually invoked as a theory (based on gravitational clumping) but no proof of such matter exists. The Big Bang cannot explain energy, plasma, or how gravity works in reality. It offers no ideas about the formation of the original exploding egg. It cannot describe how an explosion results in design or ordered patterns in the near universe and within our own solar system. It cannot explain the disorder in space at large.
Given these and sundry obvious issues, Fred Hoyle and others rejected the Big Bang and proposed an alternative model called the ‘Steady State’. This theory is also wrong given it still uses aspects of Relativity. Hoyle and his group did, however, sensibly theorise that CMB is normal radiation from stars scattered through the aether (or inter-stellar medium) due to supernovae and other explosions (Hoyle, 1984). CMB would be due to natural processes, including that of plasma creation and related radiation.
Unfortunately the Steady-State theory surmises that the universe has undergone expansion for 1012 years with short term fluctuations, resulting in 1012 years’ worth of burned out and dead planets. Such ‘burned out debris and matter’ is the ‘dark matter’ the Big Bang is looking for. When Hoyle says there are ‘10 to the power of 12 years' worth of dead material’, he's talking about a time scale of one trillion years. This is a nonsense of course. The current estimated age of the universe is about 13.8 billion years. Even that is unproven, especially if you consider that the speed of light, the basis of such estimations, is likely close to infinite.
Which Kelvin?
We should also note that the Big Bang and Relativity have been all over the place ‘predicting’ the temperature of the CMB. There is no ‘consensus’ as to what the temperature might actually be.
· 1926: Eddington, 3.2 Kelvin
· 1930s: Regener and Nernst, 2.8 K
· 1949: Alpher and Hermann, >or equal to 5K
· 1953: Gamow, 7 K
· 1954: Finlay-Freundlich, 1.9 K to 6.0 K
· 1961: Gamow, 50 K (yes, a few years after predicting 7 K, he calculated 50K)
· 1960s:, Dicke, Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson, 10 K to 40 K
· 1990s: COBE (cosmic background explorer satellite), 2.7 K
(Assis, in Peratt 1995, p. 17)
The Kelvin estimations for CBR are disparate. The COBE analysis is the accepted version yet COBE finds anomalies in temperature within the visible universe, which is unexplained by the Big Bang. 2.7 K is therefore just an average based on many assumptions. What does it mean?
In simple terms, 0 Kelvin is the absolute temperature of zero, the coldest possible temperature, where all particle motion is arrested. 2.7 Kelvin indicates that the average temperature of the universe is slightly above absolute zero or the absolute coldest temperature. The coldest recorded temperature on Earth from Antarctica is around 184 Kelvin ~-89.2 °C / -128.6 °F).
Therefore, 2.725 K is significantly colder than any place on this planet, and for a human this temperature is simply unimaginable. At such a temperature if you were to float off into space, away from any planet or heat source, you would immediately freeze into a complete solid, as your body’s ambient temperature flowed into this cold medium.
The Plasma disproof
The Big Bang has nothing to say about electro-magnetic energy or the vast deposits of plasma, the 4th state of matter, we can see and observe including the Van Allen radiation belts and the massive (more than 4 x the size of this planet’s diameter) ‘dust clouds’ which inhabit the space between the Earth and Moon.
Unlike the Big Bang theory, plasma is more strongly correlated with electro-magnetic fields than gravity, by a factor of about 1039. The flows of plasma are ‘pinched’ due to the inward pressure of the self-created magnetic field. It is at these ‘pinch points’ where galaxies coalesce, formed in dense and massive oceans of plasma. Within these regions gravity now becomes the dominant force (Peratt, 2015).
These galaxial filaments and walls of superclusters also produce the CMB or cosmic background radiation. Local currents and fields will scatter microwave radiation from these pervasive plasma sources, including radio galaxies (a galaxy that shines exceptionally bright when observed with radio telescopes) and quasars (an extremely bright and active core of a very distant, young galaxy). This is akin to fog scattering your car’s headlights. There is no need to invoke a single event like a ‘bang’, to explain CMB (Lerner, 1995).
An example of the above is our own solar system. The Sun and our stars are gravitationally bound spheres of plasma. Lightning and the aurorae are example of plasma, with the aurorae formed by the Sun’s plasma flow hitting the upper ionosphere or plasmasphere.
These complex electromagnetic fields and interactions can be observed and measured along with defined cellular and filament structures. Within the plasma universe, background radiation will be produced and dispersed naturally, giving rise to CMB (Kanipe, in Peratt, 1995, p. 114-117). In the previous post we described the symbiosis between plasma and radiation (which is quite fascinating) and how such a process operates.
The 2nd pillar of the Big Bang listed above is ‘cosmic nucleosynthesis’. This is also challenged and disproved. The amount of helium in the ‘early universe’ to form stars is much lower than what the Big Bang demands. Heavier elements also appear much earlier than the model predicts and the ratio’s of elements do not support the model’s predictions (Lerner, 2020). A summary of such issues and why the CMB disproves the Big Bang is here.
The Wolf man and shifting
In the 1980s physicist Emil Wolf (1918-2022) proposed that spectral shifts of galaxies are generated by a scattering process, confirmed by plasma theory (back to the first pillar of the Big Bang). When light from a galaxy passes through a fluctuating plasma cloud and bounces off atoms that are moving in random directions, the frequency of the light spectrum is reduced so that the wavelength moves to the red end of the spectrum. In other words, ‘red shifting’ has nothing to do with age or acceleration away from the observer.
The Wolf-shift helps explain many unexplainable phenomena including discordant redshifts where 2 objects or galaxies, which are connected, register different redshifts (James and Wolf, 1990). As the Sloan Digital Sky survey, Halton Arp and many others argued and proved with observational evidence, discordant redshifts negate the remoteness of many quasars (very bright new galaxies). The entire artifice of the ‘expanding universe’ is premised on the assumption that redshifts indicate a long age and recession (Kanipe, in Peratt, 1995, p. 114-117).
Bangers of course opine that these suggestions are due to ignorance, hardware error, or ‘misinterpretation of data’. The same excuses were used to dismiss the many thousands of experiments which find no movement of this planet. As many posts on here have described, if the redshift long-age, recessional assumption is wrong, the Big Bang is rubbished (Arp, 1981).
“We may have, therefore, to envisage that the cosmological redshift Is not due to an expanding universe, but to a loss of energy which light suffers in the immense lengths of space it has to traverse coming from the most distant star systems.
That intergalactic space is not completely empty is indicated by Stebbins and Whitford’s discovery (1948) that the cosmological redshift is accompanied by parallel unaccountable excess reddening. Thus the light must be exposed to some kind of interaction with matter and radiation in intergalactic space.’ (Finlay-Freundlich, 1954)
Well said indeed. Since the 1950s the evidence to support Finlay-Freundlich’s declaration that light interacts with matter and radiation within the aether is nigh insurmountable, yet little is shared within ‘education’ or ‘science’ about what actually causes redshifting.
Bottom Line
The Biggest Bang and Relativity are metaphysical-philosophical constructs. They are not based on sound science, nor evidence. They emanate from naturalism and mechanical determinism.
Newton’s universe is an improbable mechanised clock, wound up and left to run.
Descartes, Kant et al, in the metaphysical failure called the ‘Enlightenment’, believed in dualism, and the separation of the mind from the body, where reality is simply what you believe it to be.
Einstein and the Relativists have taken these concepts to create an ontological (‘being’) philosophy which purports to explain a mechanical and abstract universe and reality, where physical proofs are now replaced by abstract formulae and belief systems.
Within physics and cosmology, gravity becomes the parametrical force uber-alles which allows the mechanised unit to operate and explains what we see. This is obviously wrong. None of Newtonian mechanics, or its progeny Relativity and the Big Bang can explain plasma, galaxial chaos, the real nature of redshifting or what an electromagnetic universe means in our interpretation of observable data. Newton for instance, intuited ‘other forces’ to keep our solar system from collapsing, but offered no elaboration as to what these might be (Coriolis, Euler).
This post has provided some rather easy to understand disproofs including:
-Anisotropy, CMB and CBR temperature measurement variations
-Redshifting and light interaction with matter and radiation
-Plasma formation and galaxial coalescence within plasma formations
-Electromagnetism being more powerful than gravity, Gravity operating within regions of plasma
-Space as a medium, full of materiality, in contradistinction to a ‘vacuum’ (nothingness)
The above is rarely if ever taught or processed within ‘education’ or mainstream ‘science’. The reason is that the Big Bang and Relativity would be rubbished and a new cosmological theory and indeed a new model of physics would have to be erected. That is too much work and effort. After all there is money, power, paradigms, degrees, articles, books, conference, massive egos, prestige and the Church of Scientism at issue.
All hail.
==
Alfven, H. Cosmological Electrodynamics, 1950
Arp., H. Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, 1981
Finlay-Freundlich, E. ‘Red shifts in the spectra of celestial bodies, Phil, Vol 45:303-19, 1954
Flam, F. COBE sows cosmological confusion, Science, vol. 257, pp 28-30
Gamow, G. The Evolution of the universe, Nature, vol. 162, pp 680-82
Hoyle, F et al, The Radiation of Microwaves, Astrophysics, 103, pp. 371-77
Lerner, E., The Big Bang never happened, 1991
Lerner, E. Intergalactic Radio Absorption, Astrophysics, 227, pp 61-81, 1995
Lerner, E. Falomo, Scarpa, Observations contradict galaxy size and surface brightness predictions that are based on the expanding universe hypothesis, 2018
Lerner, E. The Growing Case against the Big Bang: Refuting the Big Bang's Predictions of Light Element Abundances with New Data, 2020
Peratt, A. L., Plasma Cosmology, Sky and Tel., Feb 1992, p. 136
Peratt, A. L., edtr., Plasma Astrophyics and Cosmology, 1995
Peratt, A. L. Peratt, Physics of the Plasma Universe, Second Edition, May 2015
Tickner, Clive The Plasma Universe and the Modern 'Cosmology', September 2024
The more we study the more we realize that what we thought was true is nothing more than a fantasy !!!
Great article to give us some insight and perspective to understand and ponder on.