display | more...
Note: This paper also does some hefty refutation of the big bang, which is necessary for any introductory discussion of plasma cosmology.

Super-brief Summary (for the casual reader): The big bang no longer holds any water, due to several problems. For instance, superclusters, being 350 million Light Years in length, could not possibly have formed through gravity alone in the mere ~15 billion years since the big bang. Plasma makes up over 99.999% of all the matter in the universe - these electromagnetically interacting gases fuel the creation of large objects such as superclusters, and drive other phenomenae (?) such as the separation of matter and antimatter.

Full report:

The Big Bang Theory is the well-known theory that the Universe and everything in it was created ex nihilo - from nothing - in a cataclysmic explosion. This of course is the most dominant theory of creation. But how solid is the Big Bang theory? What evidence is it based on? The answers are indeed surprising.

Many theories in the past, from the Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system to the Phlogistic theory of heat, have enjoyed nearly unanimous acceptance by the scientific community, only to later be hammered by contradictory evidence. The true test of any theory is not its level of acceptance, but its ability to explain and predict observed phenomena. This is the empirical method of science. The deductive method of science is based on interpolating how the universe must be, through the use of mathematical formulae. The deductive method holds mathematics in higher regard than empirical observation, and brings us the aforementioned Ptolemaic solar system. Such theories die slowly; every time a contradictory observation is made, the theory is revised to fit that observation. Ptolemy added a complex system of epicycles in order to "keep up with" observation. Accurate theories don't need to keep up with observation; in fact, they usually predict it. The Big Bang predicts basically nothing, and contradictory observations are popping up now almost on a monthly basis, as are revisions to the theory (like the inflationary period, and the notorious dark matter). Lets look at some of these observations in more detail, and why they invalidate the big bang theory.

First of all, there is the relatively recently discovered concept of superclusters. These colossal celestial objects are over three hundred fifty million light years in length, and contain dozens of clusters. Each one of these clusters contains hundreds of galaxies, and each galaxy contains billions of stars.

This presents the Big Bang with several problems. Most notably, these enormous complexes could not possibly have formed in the twenty billion years since the Big Bang; it would take at least a eighty billion years for them to coalesce through gravity alone, as gravity is a very weak and slow-acting force, especially on a small scale. Also, superclusters directly contradict the homogeneity the Big Bang assumes. It is clear that the universe is clumpy; how did it get this way if it began as a perfectly smooth, homogenous sea of protons? The general answer is that there were very tiny clumps in the early universe; through gravitational attraction they grew bigger and bigger, forming galaxies, clusters, and later superclusters.

Of course, the bigger the clump, the longer it takes to form. For stars, a few million years are necessary. For galaxies, approximately one to two billion. Clusters take much longer. Now, with superclusters, there is an obvious problem: these objects simply could not have formed in twenty billion years.

It's not hard to see why. It is possible to determine not only the distance of a galaxy, but the relative speed by which it is moving away, by observing its red shifts, which means the way the waves of light "stretch" when a galaxy moves away from ours. It turns out that galaxies never move much faster than about a thousand kilometers a second ? about 1/300 of the speed of light. At that rate, it would take roughly eighty billion years to form the supercluster complexes; four times longer than the time allowed by the Big Bang.

Then there is the problem of the apparent age of the supercluster complexes. Cosmologists speculate that maybe in the past matter moved faster than today, allowing for large objects to form. So now, some unknown process somehow speeds up matter, allowing superclusters to form, then another, equally enigmatic process conveniently puts the brakes on, slowing matter to the sedate speeds observed today, hence only seeming to be as old as we suspect. The immediate problem with this idea is that it is rather ad hoc - it was developed solely in order to bridge the gap between observation and theory. It is disturbing to see a new theory every time an observation is made. But let's give it a chance from a more scientific angle.

Matter would need to accelerate to about 3,000 kilometers per second in order to form superclusters. However, the observed speed that they currently move at is a mere 500 km/s. So, where does 2,500 km/s go? For just as a car's brakes convert energy of motion into heat, which is radiated into the air, so the vast energy of the primordial matter would have to be radiated away. Matter colliding at several thousand kilometers per second would radiate very intense X-rays. There is indeed a universal X-ray background, but the amount of energy in it is one hundred times less than what would be released by braking the speeding matter. So where is the energy?

Theorists speculate again that perhaps a third unknown process would convert this X-ray radiation into some other form of energy. But there is only one observed radiation background that could contain the amount of energy that would result from this hypothetical braking of matter: the cosmic microwave background. The CMB is an even, omnipresent bath of microwaves and is considered a key piece of evidence of the Big Bang. According to conventional cosmology, the CMB is a dilute afterglow of the titanic explosion that was the Big Bang. The problem is the microwave background has been measured by space probes with .1 accuracy, and has been found to be a perfect black-body spectrum, meaning that there is no increase or decrease in the amount of energy it contains at any one time. Yet there would be "bumps" in the CMB where the matter was accelerated, then decelerated in order to form superclusters. Since there is no place else the energy can go, the matter clearly was never accelerated in the first place. Finally, the Big Bang cannot be moved back in time, for this would require a bizarre two-step expansion. At first you have the initial Big Bang to get things going. Then there would have to be a sudden pause for a few billion years in order to allow time for large objects to form, and then a resumed explosion to get the observed Hubble Expansion, so that they only appear to have formed twenty billion years ago. At this point the questions spiral out of control, and in a way we?re back to the problem of speeding up and slowing down matter.

As these observations become harder to dispute, cosmologists begin - you guessed it - modifying the theory in order to fit observation. Take for instance superclusters. Cosmologists came up with the entirely ad hoc idea of cosmic strings: incredibly dense "one-dimensional singularities", or actual tears in the fabric of space-time. Their immense gravity would pull distant matter to form the ribbon shaped superclusters. These hypothetical entities would solve the homogeneity problem, but still cannot overcome the serious problem of the time it takes to form superclusters. The other major disadvantage they have is that there is no evidence at all that they exist outside the blackboard. This is a microcosm of the deductive method of science: they have to exist, since otherwise the theory wouldn't work. This clearly is not real science.

The reason most cosmologists would rather not question the Big Bang's validity is that many of them have spent their entire careers studying and elaborating the Big Bang theory. It would be difficult for them, as it would for any scientist, to abandon their life's work. Yet as painful as it is, if we want to continue to uphold the scientific method, we must abandon the Big Bang theory altogether.

Plasma Cosmology: The Alternative

Few are willing to jump ship unless there is a clear alternative in sight. Fortunately, plasma cosmology is just that. It does everything the big bang theory never did: it manages to explain newly discovered phenomena without ad hoc modifications to the theory, and even predicts some that have later been proven. It can account for the Big Bang's only predictions: the helium abundance, the microwave background, and the Hubble expansion (which is still something of a mystery regardless of what theory you apply; there are roughly half a dozen different theories). It also provides theories regarding antimatter (inversely charged matter, as in negatively charged protons), and how there could be equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe, and even antimatter stars and solar systems.

The Big Bang cannot really explain the existence of antimatter; it is speculated that perhaps it coexisted with matter when the universe began, and then as the universe cooled down, matter and antimatter annihilated each other, destroying most matter and nearly all matter. This, it is said, is not only why antimatter is so rare, but why the universe has so little matter in it considering its size. The many problems with this model are virtually self-evident. For instance, why would there be a little bit of matter and virtually no antimatter left if it had a perfectly homogenous beginning? Wouldn't that mean that there were equal amounts of antimatter and matter? In that event, wouldn?t all matter and all antimatter be annihilated? Why wasn't all the antimatter destroyed if there was more matter? Clearly it makes no sense.

With Plasma Cosmology, however, there are known magnetic mechanisms through which matter and antimatter could be sequestered from each other. There are probably antimatter solar systems out there; we might have even observed some, but the problem is that there is no way to tell at a distance whether or not an object is matter or antimatter. The other problem is, one pound of matter plus one pound of antimatter would result in an explosion the equivalent of a twenty-four megaton hydrogen bomb. That's why only small quantities (i.e., a few atoms) have been observed on earth, yet that's the important thing: they have been observed.

Another major difference between the Big Bang and plasma cosmology is that the Big Bang employs hypothetical forces and processes that have never been observed anywhere in the universe, let alone on earth. The major elements of plasma cosmology are forces and processes that are observable and experimentally verifiable right here on earth. Computer simulations as well as laboratory experiments have shown that with the known forces of plasma cosmology, galaxies can be created that look exactly like the ones we have today, and not only that, but plasma cosmology can explain exactly why galaxies are shaped in the manner they are.

From holoscience.com:

"All of the features of galaxies have been modeled by plasma physicists without the need for ad hoc additions of unseen dark matter or black holes. Plasma cosmology has one great advantage in that the phenomena are scaleable from galaxies down to stars, planets and the lab. So it is possible to bring cosmology back down to earth and do away with invisible dark matter, neutron stars, black holes and the Big Bang. They are unnecessary when the electric force is a thousand trillion trillion trillion times stronger than gravity!"

What you're almost certainly wondering at this point is: how exactly does plasma cosmology explain creation? To put it plainly, there never was one; according to plasma cosmologists, the universe has always existed, without any sort of creation. The fundamental problem with a creation is that nobody can explain exactly what caused it, and where the energy came from that would enable it to happen. The universe doesn't necessarily need a creation to exist; there is no reason that it couldn't have existed for all eternity, constantly evolving. This is not an evasive attitude, it is simply one that decides not to deal with an unnecessary theory.

Which is another key difference: Big Bang cosmologists present the particularly pessimistic viewpoint of a universe with a perfect beginning slowly degenerating to a bleak, empty heat death. (This occurs primarily through proton decay, in which protons actually break up and dissolve after many ├Žons.) The Plasma Universe is one of a more optimistic and, it could be said, realistic viewpoint: an ageless universe constantly evolving.

The mechanics of Plasma Cosmology are complex and varied, as it is not merely a replacement for the Big Bang; it is an entirely new set of rules regarding how the universe works. The crux of the theory is that the universe and its evolution is driven by massive electromagnetic currents and plasma filaments, which would move matter around much quicker and incongruously than the Big Bang's explanation of gravity slowly pulling together this matter. The Big Bang cannot explain why matter is clumped together the way that it is, or in the shape that it is. In fact, it incorrectly states that the universe at large is smooth. Which it clearly isn't, but it would be if the universe began as a perfect sea of protons, which is why the universe has to be smooth at large. This is another example of the deductive thinking of the Big Bang. Plasma is what is produced when an atom is stripped of its electrons. The result: electromagnetically interacting gases - constitutes 99.999% of the matter in the galaxy. It is self-evident that this matter must play a critical role in the galaxy. Yet the Big Bang is restricted to 0.001% of the matter in the galaxy while the rest of the matter is just along for the ride. Somehow, volatile particle clouds with strong electrical charges don't do much according to the Big Bang; they just sit there while the incredibly weak force of gravity takes care of everything. Clearly this decidedly deductive model is unworkable. We may never know one hundred percent beyond a shadow of a doubt how the universe truly operates down to the last detail. But if anything is certain, it's that the Big Bang's time has come. It is time for it to step down from its position as cosmological dogma and assume its rightful position with all the other perniciously baseless theories we eventually discarded: the flat earth, the geocentric solar system, the Phlogistic theory of heat, and other warnings of what happens when scientists dissociate from observation.

A node stuff you've written before production
Major References: Eric J. Lerner's "The Big Bang Never Happened"
http://www.antimatter.com (Now 404 certified)

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.