The present scientific narrative of the Big Bang Theory is in crisis, and this is relevant to the Great Awakening because it will affect the consciousness of humanity. How we are taught to view the universe matters. When a cosmological theory becomes the prevailing Doctrine of Truth, it shapes the way we think about ourselves, which in turn shapes what are willing to accept as natural and good for society, religion, and government. This has consequences. Throughout history the “official” cosmological model of the time has been the foundational argument people in power use as the ultimate justification of their control. (Research the divine right of kings, and Galileo’s fight with the Catholic Church.)
Today’s official cosmological narrative is no longer supported by observation. It is being challeneged by an increasing flood of irrefutable evidence proving that the theory has to be wrong––not might be, has to be. As methods of observation improve, they keep finding things that are not just problematic, but actually impossible if the Big Bang Theory is the correct model of the history of the universe. Right now we are in the stage of great thinkers trying to save the theory, but the only way to do that is to invent fantastical nonsense to explain the anomalies. It has all been done before, and the outcome is always the same. Fantasy, however brilliant, never survives the truth.
The emerging problem comes from the fact that the Big Bang Theory is based upon the assumption that gravity rules everything from the formation of matter to its distribution in space. Every process is kinetic, with gravity pushing things around to arrange systems of planets and stars. The theory makes predictions about how those things should appear based upon this assumption, but that is not what they see in space. These problems didn’t just arise in last couple of decades. The existence of dark matter was proposed because the kind of rotation they observed in every single galaxy could not happen from their mass if gravity was the only factor driving it. But gravity was the only force they would entertain, so they came up with dark matter (conveniently untestable, unseeable, and unfindable) to fill up the gap for mass and make their dependence upon gravity work. (Research epicycles in ancient Greece.)
The gravity-only Big Bang Theory grew out of Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, which astro-physicists took and ran with, thinking gravity was the only thing that was important. Post-Einstein cosmologists would consider no other force, and the result was a universe full of isolated bodies that have absolutely no connection other than the ghostly influences of gravity and light. This is the most important point to make about gravity-only cosmology because it impacts how we think about ourselves. If our planet and our solar system are isolated and unconnected to the rest of the universe, then how can our connections with each other have any meaning? Under the zeitgeist of that cosmology, loneliness and isolation are not an aberration, and it becomes easy to lead people to accept being governed by a nanny state that that keeps every aspect of society in balance by decree. Communism is the ultimate expression of this, and it could not have survived without the zeitgeist of isolationist cosmology to justify it.
But all that is changing. It is already abundantly evident that every aspect of the universe is very much connected by a force much stronger than gravity. Everywhere they look they see magnetic fields. These cannot exist by themselves (which some otherwise brilliant people have stupidly proposed). Magnetic fields can only exist where there is a flowing current of charge. In other words, they cannot exist apart from a flow of electricity. This is well-established science, and no one has ever observed anything different––ever. (Even in a bar magnet there is a virtual flowing charge among the atoms in the alignment of their electrons.) Cosmologists are slowly coming to accept that there must be electric charges flowing in the thin plasmas of space, and that single concession makes all the anomalies they observe understandable, and their behavior becomes predictable to a high degree of accuracy.
(Note: A plasma is a gas made of positively-charged atoms and free electrons, and it doesn’t behave like a normal gas. Kinetic models of gas being pushed around by things like explosions or stellar winds do not apply. The electric and magnetic forces make a plasma behave differently, even to the point of the organization and redistribution of matter. Depending of the amount of current flowing, a plasma can shine brightly, glow moderately, or even not shine at all.)
Cosmologists have already conceded that earth and the other planets are connected to the sun by ropes of charged plasma that carry a current, and they were astounded to find evidence that even galaxies and giant galactic clusters are connected in the same way. The huge magnetic fields they are currently observing inside the galaxies themselves means there is a circuit of current flowing within them (which, by the way, fully accounts for their peculiar kind of rotation without the nonsense of dark matter). Do not believe people who say those cosmic magnetic fields are just there, frozen in space from some event in the distant past, because that is literally impossible. (Those people should go take a course in electrical engineering to save themselves from looking like fools.)
The fact that the sun has its own magnetic field means that there has to be electrical current flowing within it, too. The tufts (granules) on its surface are consistent with the kinds of arc discharges that work to regulate a flow of current, and the fact that its atmosphere shoots up to millions of degrees at a great distance from its much cooler surface is completely explained if the phenomenon is electrical in nature. (Any fusion of atoms would be happening there.) I would not be surprised if I wake up one morning to headlines saying they discovered the sun is not the isolated celestial body they thought it was but is connected to a larger galactic circuit by huge currents of electrical charge.
The point of all this is to show that our conceptions about how the universe works are in the process of changing. We have been learning that we are connected to the rest of the universe in a very real way, and it is inevitable that our collective understanding of cosmology will undergo a radical transformation that will greatly impact us all. When the facts of this universal connectedness become accepted as the truth, we will see clearly that we are not alone and adrift in empty space, but it means much more than that. It means that the universe is built to grow from energy that continually organizes fallow matter into form. It means that the universe was not wound up at the beginning and left to run down and die a silent death in the cold. It means that entropy will not rule the flow of time because it will always be overpowered by the organization of matter from the introduction of energy.
That is a much better cosmic vision than one of futility. The dark hopelessness of the Big Bang is being replaced by a vision that will produce a positive zeitgeist in the consciousness of humanity, not only by confirming our intrinsic human connectedness but also in assuring us that we have the real potential to grow and prosper beyond our designated lot. I believe this one factor, more than anything else, will propel billions of hesitant souls over the hump to join the Great Awakening; for the very physics of the universe will confirm to them that their existence isn’t futile. They will realize they are not just living to die when they see that the hope of making a better, happier life full of meaning is approved, and they will never again let someone who "knows better" steal that from them.
Excellent write-up. It is indeed an Electric Universe we live in and can explain in scintillating detail even the formation of the craters on the moon. Yes, a course in electrical engineering will help to better understand this, but even the science and the taught equations there only considers at best half of the electrical influences.
TLDR but I know and agree with the theory so Gabe u. A thumbs up.
Decided to read it anyway, it's mostly good. Dark matter is indeed the epicyclic dark horse that will destroy the Bohr model and vindicate Einstein who never signed onto it. Dark matter/energy has no observational evidence and is merely a placeholder for the fact that the math don't work. I don't think the culprit is the gravity assumption, but the lightspeed assumption. The four forces work fine but the resolution of all problems arises simply by permitting lightspeed to vary. It's called CDK, celerity decay, meaning that light has been slowing down.
It's right there is another connection, evidenced by the plasma trails, not only in clusters but even in clusters of clusters. I think this connection is largely formed of entangled particles, meaning phenomena that operate instantly at indefinite distance (note that this is not about lightspeed but about ways to communicate at apparent FTL distances without violating Einstein; FTL is always some kind of trick, and here the trick is prearranging the entanglements). I can't comment on how this sets up the electromagnetic fields but it seems consistent with them.
The difficulty is that, although we are interconnected, we don't have evidence the universe contains "energy that continually organizes fallow matter into form"; we have evidence this energy comes from outside (meaning from God). To place God within our universe would contradict the Two Laws of Thermodynamics. Even as this scientific breakthrough comes there will still be, as always, two philosophical paths available: we can create ourselves, or God created us. The former will, like Bohr, be found inconsistent, but it will still have its proponents who argue that our creator was merely more advanced lifeforms within this same static universe; the philosophical contest remains.
I do not place God within the physical universe by this argument. That is not what I meant to say at all. I am contending that vast amounts of energy flow within it via Berkeland currents in plasma, which organize matter the way such currents have been proven to do in laboratories. Everything about those processes is scalable. The theory that electricity flows in space through plasma predicts filamentary structures, and filamentary structures are seen literally everywhere, at every scale, which is impossible with a gravity-only cosmological model.
What I am saying it that the universe creates new planets, stars, and galaxies through something that was built into it from the start, and that everything is connected by the same phenomenon. A plasma cloud will independently set up an electrical potential as the charges within it naturally separate. Nothing kinetic needs to happen to start that process. Just that fact that there is an imbalance of charge starts it, and it has a strong tendency to grow.
The proposition that light speed can be variable is intriguing until you realize it’s just another attempt at fudging the numbers to save the dominant theory.
Well, this may be new after all then. My understanding was that sufficient lightspeed increase in the past explains the plasma filament residue.
If you have a mechanism that transcends thermodynamics by increasing order or energy within a closed system, that would be quite new. I don't know that experiments show any capacity for such increase. I don't have a problem with formation of new structures assuming they represent a coalescing of order that was presumed to be a present genotype in the origin structure as well (something traceable back to the CMB radiation). But if we're looking at unbounded ability to decrease entropy, that only comes in an open system.
Some think Hawking crazy for putting the Big Bang in a singularity and making the math work with imaginary time, but you've got to get here somehow, where we have this observed finite energy to work with and constant increase in entropy. The reversal of either of these in forward time will only be what we call supernatural until we can come up with natural laws to explain it. So whenever we touch on supernature it's important to be sure we see the philosophical tension between Creator God and every other explanation.
Not a fan of Hawking, and I don’t believe in black holes. The things in the centers of active galaxies that shoot out jets are not black holes. They are plasmoids that compress and eject matter, and they do exactly what plasmoids do without the need for exotic physics. You can create them in a lab, and the process is scaleable. The glowing rings they are so excited about aren’t black holes either. They are magnetic pinches in Berkeland currents. The rings they see are one thing that can happen in such a pinch when they are created in a lab, and that process is likewise scalable.
The introduction of energy can certainly be destructive, but it can also be constructive. The electric and magnetic effects of current flowing in plasma can and do organize matter. That is not a point I will debate because you can do your own experiments in a lab and see it for yourself. I stand by my contention that the universe is built to keep going, and that it will not succumb to entropy in the end because it has a built-in mechanism that overcomes it.
Brilliant people are not immune to human flaws. They can brilliantly deny what they don’t want to believe. There are so many stupid things they came up with to save their gravity-dependent scientific view. When they discovered pulsars the only thing they could fit into that matrix was the idea of a lighthouse. Those stars must be spinning to emit regular signals, right? The only problem is that some of those stars would have to be spinning faster than a dentist’s drill, so might there be an explanation that doesn’t have to warp physics in a special situation? Nature always takes the easiest road, and it’s always best to begin there to find answers. A number of electrical/magnetic effects could easily explain those regular pulses, but since scientific education has been specialized for so long, the ones who looked into it had no reference outside their corridor of knowledge that would point them to a simpler explanation. It's only recently that any of them would even consider the possibility that there might be electrical activity in stars.
The Big Bang/gravity-is-the-only-constructive-force model will finally die when the price of trying to saving the theory is outweighed by the price of looking like a fool.
OK, I grant that the thoughts are revolutionary and that the Big Bang model will be transcended. Have not specialized in electricity and when I do find articles on lab work they haven't revealed these trends, so I will keep my eyes open for confirmations. Much appreciated.
u/Graphenium always has a fascinating point of view about everything including OP, though I'm not convinced that redshift fails to conserve either.
The real answer, and this is especially true of Feynman, is that we don't have the mental models to explain the things we're measuring and so we run awry with imagination because our math and measuring abilities are so potent. Instead we need attunement to what is happening so that instead of simply supportive math we have robust concepts that have descriptive and predictive power. Calling something a wavicle just says we've only experienced two dimensions of the elephant.
Interestingly, if you get into the weeds on this topic, Hubble redshift does violate conservation of energy, but if you read the updated versions of the 2nd law, it says “in a closed, time invariant system, energy will be conserved”
It just so happens that an expanding spacetime invalidates time invariance. Nifty little trick they use to keep their “Laws”^tm unquestionable lol
Good, that possibility might explain Hawking too, will keep my eyes open for it.
Great point. Thanks. You know, I have always thought that the answers to the toughest questions were hidden in plain sight, but we don't know how to see them. It just might be that the secrets of the universe really are on the back of some gum wrapper after all. On the other hand, the answer to everything might be 42.
The universe is not a “closed system” (which is to say, it does not show Kaluza-Klein symmetry at the universal scale). Hubble red-shift illustrates this, in the loss of energy (“redshifting”) through the expansion of space-time. Thus, to imagine that the “laws” of thermodynamics are breakable in one direction but not the other seems to me the under-supported conclusion, they seem more like strong suggestions than laws.
Very interesting subject matter. A plus.
Just wait till you hear about time mobility, alternate universes, ability to travel faster than light, etc. All possible with Nikola Tesla and Quantum Mechanics.
I would be happy just to see some flying cars. I was disappointed when I arrived in the future (through a long process of aging) and saw that all the cars were still on the ground.
fucking popular mechanics promised flying cars by 2000 back in 1972.
Actually you can buy a flying car.
https://www.beautifullife.info/automotive-design/10-real-flying-cars/
Will purchase when they come without wings.
The PAL-V Liberty is for you, then. Its a helicopter car. And it can be all yours for under $500,000.
What can I get for $42.00?
Depends on your credit.
Well, that's a wash, then.
If you want to understand the origins of the universe you cannot look to the universe by itself. You must go beyond physics. Metaphysics. One metaphysical principle that crushes the big bang theory is the principle of suffient reason. This basically means that there is a sufficient reason for everything to exist as it is. E.G. An explosion is not a sufficient reason for creation. You would never use dynamite to construct a home, or to construct anything for that matter. Only to destruct. This leads to the principle of cause and effect. The effect cannot be greater than the cause. E.g. a monkey will never produce a man because a man is superior to the monkey in intellect. Also, a monkey is greater than man in physical areas that are beyond the man's ability to generate. The heirarchy is not based on survival of the fittest. Man is the most physically unfit creature in the world. Yet, we can possess all kinds of creatures at will. The heirarchy is based on metaphysical powers, i.e., powers that extend beyond physics. This is the intellect and will. The highest in the heirarchy is infinite (outside of time) in wisdom (as is evidence by principle of sufficient reason) and omnipotent (as is evident by the physical universe). A Creator, infinite in entillect and will is the only sufficient reason for everything in existence. The universe is less than 6,000 years old, and Earth is at the center.
I’m not sure where you’re going with all that, but my view is that the truth about how physical things are constructed is knowable from a purely physical investigation. How they came to be in the first is a matter of faith. I have no contention with the idea that God created everything, the proposition that He actively holds it all together, or the notion that the spiritual realm is superior to the physical realm. In fact, I believe all those things, but that was not the focus of my discussion, and I don’t think we need to go there to understand physics well enough to make reasonable predictions about how things work.
However, I will say this: When you come right down to it, the Big Bang Theory was just another attempt to cut God out of the equation, but it answers nothing because it cannot give a first cause. There is no way to answer the question, “What happened before that?” The theory is doomed in any case. Having to fudge the numbers or bring in magical unicorns to make your theory work means its assumptions are wrong, and there always comes a point when the unicorns will gather to bite you in the butt. Highly-educated people speak about the Big Bang like it’s a fact, as if they were there when it happened, but the truth is they just believe it, and they should be honest about that. They will come off much better in the end with just that one admission.
I want to address something in my post I’ve been worried about. My description of a plasma was simplistic and might give the wrong idea. Neutral atoms are always present along with the positive ions and electrons in a plasma. The fact is that the percentage of charged matter in the mix can be pretty low and the gas will still respond to electric and magnetic forces as a plasma.