The Big Bang never happened

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center>

PLASMA COSMOLOGY

Technical overview II </center>

Dr Charles Bruce FIEE, FIP, FRAS

Dr Charles Bruce was an expert in high voltage electrical engineering and a Fellow of The Royal Astronomical Society. In the 1940s he made a remarkable proposal that is still ignored by mainstream astronomy to this day. His proposal supports the electrodynamic paradigm.

Bruce identified cosmic jets, solar flares, magnetic fields and high temperatures in space as electrical discharge phenomena.

"And even if one regards the electric fields as merely another postulate, it has the great advantage that it is the one postulate which, in my view, renders all the others unnecessary." C. E. R Bruce, Electric Fields in Space, Penguin Science, 1968

Bruce also identified beautiful bipolar planetary nebulae as electrical phenomena. (M2-9 is pictured in the header, above, to the left of the lightning flash.)


The Plasma Gun

The plasma gun, pictured below, is a simple plasma focus device, consisting of two metal tubes, one inside the other. They have been successful in concentrating plasma discharges during at least three decades of research.



The energy stored in a large bank of capacitors is concentrated into a tiny filamentary knot, shaped like a donut, and known as a plasmoid. When plasmoid vortexes collapse, two intense plasma filaments are fired along the axis.





Above. Looking down the barrel of a plasma focus gun.



Above. 3D view of a cosmic plasma gun, the M1 Pulsar.

Below. Looking down the barrel, so to speak, of Nebula NGC 6751.

The same process can be seen at the core of spiral galaxies and in powerful stellar outbursts. Pictured right is Nebula NGC 6751. Plasma phenomena, of course, are scalable over many orders of magnitude. The compact energetic activity at the core of galaxies is thus explained in simple electrical terms. In Plasma Cosmology there is no need for mathematical abstraction. Who needs Black Holes?

Devices based on the plasma gun are being developed to generate neutron beams, x-rays, and nuclear fusion devices. The future of space travel probably rests on these.


Plasma focus v Black Holes

The existence of Black Holes is no longer questioned in conventional astronomy, despite the fact that they are based entirely on theoretical assumptions.

However, astronomers using NASAs Hubble Space Telescope have identified the source of a mysterious blue light surrounding a 'super-massive black hole' in our neighboring Galaxy, Andromeda M31. It originates from a disk of hot, young stars that whip around the 'black hole' in much the same way that planets in our solar system revolve around the Sun. Astronomers are perplexed about how this disk of stars could form so close to a giant black hole. They should, of course, be sucked into oblivion, but this isn't happening.

Similar stars close to the core of our Milky Way galaxy have also been observed.

None of this perplexes astronomers who are familiar with plasma. They can generate similar effects in a plasma lab with the plasma focus device (above): It is the plasmoid that forms and stores energy at the focus of the discharge. When the plasmoid reaches a critical energy level, it discharges its energy in a collimated jet along its axis in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrons. Being unstable outside a nucleus, the neutrons soon decay into protons and electrons. The electrons are held back by the electromagnetic field, and the high-speed protons are beamed away.

On a galactic scale this is probably the mechanism that produces the collimated jets streaming away from the cores of active galaxies. The masses of ejected protons may make up the quasars that are associated with these galaxies and could be the basis for their intrinsic redshift.

Stephen Hawking has put forward a new thoery about black holes, suggesting that they do not destroy everything that strays into their path. The implications are profound for g. theory, and do not surprise those who favour the plasma focus model.

The power source in a plasma gun is understood and can be shown to actually work (using electric currents). An infinitely strong gravitational field has never been shown to exist, plus there needs to be a mechanism that converts the (gravitational) potential energy into plasma effects, which are clearly the end product.





Intergalactic plasma circuits

A new technique has revealed faint structures amidst the galaxies of the Virgo Cluster. Plasma cosmologists immediately recognise the 'cocoons, plumes, and streamers' as Birkeland currents and plasma sheaths. This is direct confirmation of the intergalactic circuits predicted by the plasma model.

The 'pinch effect' organises plasmas into filaments that act as 'power cables'. These can attract and repel, and when close can spiral around each other. At points of sufficiently strong interaction, the matter in these cables will be stretched into arcs and/or bulges that can generate the familiar forms of a spiral galaxy.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Found at www.plasmacosmology.net/imp.html

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center>Some of the implications of Plasma Cosmology

Shifting the Paradigm </center>

It seems that a perspective shift may be required before the paradigm can do likewise.

From a conventional perspective, planets and stars are seen as tiny dots of matter punctuating the vast 'emptiness' of space. In this dubious model gravity and inertia dominate, albeit with a little magnetism stirred into the equations now and again.

Plasma Cosmology turns this perspective on its head.

In reality 'empty' space is actually a vast sea of Plasma, and dominated by electromagnetic forces. The tiny dots of matter are formed by the Z-pinch effect (see technical), and surrounded by protective sheathes or Double Layers (again, see technical).

"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents." Hannes Alfven

Space is filled with a network of currents which transfer energy and momentum over vast distances. The currents have a tendency to pinch into filaments which give rise to cellular structures. These are separated by capacitor-like double layers, producing plasma phenomena which are characterized by conditions of non-isotropy, discontinuity and inhomogeneity.

Galaxies are thus expected to lie like pearl beads on a filamentary necklace, as is observed.


EM versus Gravity

Contrast the plasma model, capable of being reproduced in straightforward simulations, with the Nebular hypothesis -- the idea that vast clouds of dust produced by the BB eventually accreted to form planets and stars. The latter relies almost entirely on gravity, and that most famous of Free Variables -- Time. It ignores the existence of plasma and its electrodynamic properties!

Gravitational forces are only attractive, whereas electromagnetic forces are both attractive and repulsive, and 10^39 stronger! They both vary inversely with the square of the distance.

EM forces are known to produce the spheroid, toroid, and spiral structures that we witness throughout the universe. Gravity is NOT the only force at work.


Matters of no little importance

Standard scientific texts focus on just three states of matter -- solids, liquids, and gases. This is no small omission. Not only should Plasma be added to this list, but it should take first place, not least because of the fact that it constitutes 99% of the known Universe! Space travel has confirmed this fact. It is misleading to describe plasma as an ionized gas when it is in fact a state in its own right.

Given the dominance of Plasma in the universe, it seems more sensible to consider solids as cooled Plasma (Or matter with energy removed), as opposed to highly energised or heated matter.

Moreover, because of the ability of Plasma to interact with electromagnetic forces, it is capable of forming far more complex structures than those seen in solids, liquids, or gases.

Plasma is for everyone as Anthony Perratt, a leading contemporary Astrophysicist, is wont to say.

“[T]he professional tends to interpret the pictures by using the theory he was taught while the amateur tries to use the picture to arrive at a theory” Halton Arp, Seeing Red


Houston, we have a problem!

Within the limited confines of our own backyard, the Solar System, existing gravitational models seem to be holding-up. We have succeeded in sending probes to neighbouring planets and, despite the crashes and anomalous accelerations that have afflicted many space programs, the Huygens mission recently scored a spectacular success -- landing on Titan, a moon of Saturn, despite unexpected atmospheric conditions.

It should be noted, however, that g models begin to break down when we look further a field. Gravity, of course, is generally described as a property of mass. The trouble is that we have not discovered enough mass in our own galaxy, The Milky Way, to account for its fortunate tendency not to disintegrate.

The existence of mysterious Dark Matter is hypothesised to account for this shortfall in mass, but it is yet to be discovered despite extensive searches. Its existence is only inferred on the basis that g models 'must be' correct. The alternatives raise too many uncomfortable questions!

Furthermore, Dark Matter is no small kludge factor -- it is alleged to account for between 20% to 99% of the universe, depending on which accounts you read! This has lead to further problems in relation to expansion models, and another hypothetical, Dark Energy, has been invented to overcome these. In summation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy add up to the blank cheques that postpone the falsification of bankrupt theories.

Moreover, it can be shown that electromagnetic forces are several orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational forces, especially in certain types of plasma, and also that electromagnetic forces can have a longer range. On the largest scales, evidence that plasmas exhibit external forces on physical objects such as galaxies is the same as that which has lead standard model researchers to postulate dark matter and dark energy. Need anymore be said?

"It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical." Jim Peebles, Princeton Cosmologist



"...past 90% it [Dark Matter] begins to make observations irrelevant." Halton Arp


The space tether experiment

In 1996, in a joint venture between the US and Italy, a large spherical satellite was deployed from the US space shuttle at the end of a conducting cable (tether) over 12 miles long. The idea was to let the shuttle drag the tether across the Earth's magnetic field, producing one part of a dynamo circuit. The return current, from the shuttle to the payload, would flow via the Earth's ionosphere.

The deployment was almost complete when things went wrong. The tether suddenly broke free, and it took some smart detective work to discover the cause. The nature of the break suggested it was not caused by excessive tension, but that a strong electric current had melted the tether.

"In the beginning was the Plasma." Hannes Alfven


... As Above ... So Below ...

It is often said that there is no reason to believe that the universe knows about us, or that our solar system knows about the universe. In this purely mechanistic view, contradictory evidence is generally explained away as merely coincidental.

See this article from www.astronomy.com

Anomalies in CMB measurements seem to suggest that our solar system reacts to conditions outside it, which was not expected, but this situation is dismissed as ... coincidental.

Plasma Cosmology promotes a more holistic view of the universe. This is a profound differentiation, and permits many theories previously excluded in a purely mechanistic gravity-dominated universe. Bodies immersed in plasma are not isolated -- they are connected by circuits.

"When Kepler found his long-cherished belief did not agree with the most precise observation, he accepted the uncomfortable fact. He preferred the hard truth to his dearest illusions; that is the heart of science." Carl Sagan

The Dynamic Universe


The Plasma Universe is an extremely dynamic, quasi Steady-State Universe. It may seem strange to consider Galaxies lasting billions of years as mere transient phenomena, but this is how it is. Planets, Stars and Galaxies are born and die. The universe is cyclical!

In the plasma model, super clusters, clusters and galaxies are formed from magnetically confined plasma vortex filaments. The plasma cosmology approach can easily accommodate large scale structures, and in fact predicts them. Since the plasma approach hypothesises no theoretical starting point, the amount of time necessary for large-scale structures presents no problem for the theory.

"The universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous states we are not privileged to know." David Bohm
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hello Tommy

I agree with your statements above.

For over 30 years my opinion has been the same.

The next step to active galactic centres such as M87.

The jet streams are so big that it is possible for high density plama objects to be ejected. These objects need only be a few Kms across to form the core of future stars. If you notice m87 it is like a bee hive of cluster of stars. These cores are so dence that their life span would last over 10 billion years.

---

As for matter and energy, they have always being here in one form or another.

The more observations of deep field leads us to think of the recycling process.

The chicken and the egg has no solution in respect to the universe.
Only on planet earth the egg came first.


Happy New Year



Harry

Found at metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=630


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

<center>'Seeing Red'

by Halton Arp</center>

There is now a fashionable set of beliefs regarding the workings of the universe, greatly publicized as the Big Bang, which I believe is wildly incorrect. But in order to enable people to make their own judgments about this question, we need to examine a large number of observations. Observations in science are the primary and final authority.

More than 10 years have passed and, in spite of determined opposition, I believe the observational evidence has become overwhelming, and the Big Bang has in reality been toppled. There is now a need to communicate the new observations, the connections between objects and the new insights into the workings of the universe - all the primary obligations of academic science, which has generally tried to suppress or ignore such dissident information.

(It makes one wonder, perhaps with profit, whether there are other uncertain assumptions on which much of our lives are built, but of which we are innocently overconfident.)

The present book is sure to outrage many academic scientists. Many of my professional friends will be greatly pained. Why then do I write it? First, everyone has to tell the truth as they see it, especially about important things. The fact that the majority of professionals are intolerant of even opinions which are discordant makes change a necessity. Those friends of mine who also struggle to get the mainstream of astronomy back on track mostly feel that presenting evidence and championing new theories is sufficient to cause change, and that it is improper to criticize an enterprise to which they belong and value highly. I disagree, in that I think if we do not understand why science is failing to self-correct, it will not be possible to fix it.

At this point, I believe we must look for salvation from the non-specialists, amateurs and interdisciplinary thinkers - those who form judgments on the general thrust of the evidence, those who are skeptical about any explanation, particularly official ones, and above all are tolerant of other people's theories. (When the complete answer is not known, in a sense everyone is a crackpot - Gasp!)

If the cause of these redshifts is misunderstood, then distances can be wrong by factors of 10 to 100, and luminosities and masses will be wrong by factors up to 10,000. We would have a totally erroneous picture of extragalactic space, and be faced with one of the most embarrassing boondoggles of our intellectual history.

Because objects in motion in the laboratory, or orbiting double stars, or rotating galaxies all show Doppler redshifts to longer wavelengths when they are receding, it has been assumed throughout astronomy that redshifts always and only mean recession velocity. No direct verification of this assumption is possible, and through the years many contradictions have arisen and been ignored. The evidence presented here is, I hope, convincing because it offers many different proofs of intrinsic (non-velocity) redshifts in every category of celestial object.

It is interesting to note that at first, Einstein felt this solution was incorrect. Later he said it was correct, but of no consequence. Finally he accepted the validity of this solution, but was so unhappy with the fact that it was not a stable solution, i.e., it either collapsed or expanded, that he retained the cosmological constant he had earlier introduced in order to keep the universe static. (This constant was later referred to as the cosmological fudge factor.)

In 1924, Hubble persuaded the world that the "white nebula" were really extragalactic, and a few years later announced that the redshifts of their spectral lines increased as they became fainter. This redshift-apparent magnitude relation for galaxies became known as the Hubble law ( through lack of rigor, often referred to as the redshift-distance relation). At this point Einstein dropped his cosmological constant as a great mistake, and adopted the view that his equations had been telling him all along, that the universe was expanding. Thus was born the Big Bang theory, according to which the entire universe was created instantaneously out of nothing 15 billion years ago.

This really is the entirety of the theory on which our whole concept of cosmology has been rested for the last 75 years. It is interesting to note, however, that Hubble, the observer, even up to his final lecture before the Royal Society, always held open the possibility that the redshift did not mean velocity of recession but might be caused by something else.

In his seminal book Realm of the Nebulae Hubble wrote: "On the other hand, if the interpretation as velocity shifts is abandoned, we find in the redshifts a hitherto unrecognized principle whose implications are unknown."

In the ensuing years the evidence discussed in the present book has built up to the point where it is clear that the velocity interpretation can now be abandoned in favor of a new principle which stands on a firm observational and theoretical foundation.
But of course, the stunning aspect of the ROSAT observations was that two quasars of redshift .63 and .45 are actually physically linked by a luminous connection to a low redshift object of z= .007. When I showed this to the local experts, there were alarmed states followed by annoyance.

This result made it clear that the compact and interacting groups were just a more concentrated ensemble of young, non-equilibrium companion galaxies which had been ejected more recently from the parent galaxy, and were composed of material of higher redshift. Aside from being empirically true, this interpretation solves all the conventional paradoxes of the failure of the galaxies to merge into a single galaxy on a cosmic time scale, and also explains the unbearable presence of "discordant" redshifts.

In later chapters we will show that galaxies and quasars tend to occur at certain preferred redshifts. This quantization implies that galaxies do not evolve with smoothly decreasing redshifts, but change in steps.

One major point of the present book is to try to make it impossible to ignore the enormous amount of mutually supporting significant evidence which all points to the same conclusion.
In the face of 28 years of accumulated evidence, to go on proclaiming that quasars are out at the edge of the universe seems unpardonable.

Summary - Alignments, Quasars, BL Lac's and Galaxy Clusters


1) Objects which appear young are aligned on either side of eruptive objects. This implies ejection of protogalaxies.

2) The youngest objects appear to have the highest redshifts. This implies that intrinsic redshift decreases as the object ages.

3) As distance from the ejecting central object increases, the quasars increase in brightness and decrease in redshift. This implies that the ejected objects evolve as they travel outward.

4) At about z= .3 and about 400 kpc from that parent galaxy the quasars appear to become very bright in optical and X-ray luminosity. This implies there is a transition to BL Lac Objects.

5) Few BL Lac objects are observed implying this phase is short-lived.


6) Clusters of galaxies, many of which are strong X-ray sources, end to appear at comparable distances to the BL Lac's from the parent galaxy. This suggests the clusters may be a result of the breaking up of a BL Lac.

7) Clusters of galaxies in the range z= .4 to .2 contain blue, active galaxies. It is implied that they continue to evolve to higher luminosity and lower redshift.

Abell clusters from z= .01 to .2 lie along ejection lines from galaxies like CenA. Presumably they are evolved products of the ejections.

9) The strings of galaxies which are aligned through the brightest nearby spirals have redshifts z= .01 to .02. Presumably they are the last evolutionary stage of the ejected protogalaxies before they become slightly higher redshift companions of the original ejecting galaxies. (p166-7)

Quantization of Redshifts

The fact that measured values of redshift do not vary continuously but come in steps- certain preferred values- is so unexpected that conventional astronomy has never been able to accept it, in spite of the overwhelming observational evidence. Their problem is simply that if redshifts measure radial components of velocities, then galaxy velocities can be pointed at any angle to us, hence their redshifts must be continuously distributed. For supposed recession velocities of quasars, to measure equal steps in all directions in the sky means we are at the center of a series of explosions. This is an anti-Copernican embarrassment. So a simple glance at the evidence discussed in this Chapter shows that extragalactic astronomy and Big Bang theory is swept away. (p195)

On the theoretical front it has become more persuasive that particle masses determine intrinsic redshifts and that these change with cosmic age. Therefore episodic creation of matter will imprint redshift steps on objects created at different epochs. In addition it appears increasingly useful to view particle masses to be communicated by wave like carriers in a Machian universe. Therefore the possibility of beat frequencies, harmonics, interference and evolution through resonant states is opened up. (p195)
My attitude toward this result is that in a Machian universe there must be some signal carrier for inertial mass coming from distant galaxies. (p202)

In the phenomena of quantization, we have a connection from the redshifts of the quasars, to the redshifts of the galaxies, to the properties of the solar system and finally to the properties of fundamental particles like the electrons. The quantization of physical parameters would seem to be governed by the laws of non-local physics, i.e. like quantum mechanics in which the fundamental parameter appears to be time- for example the repetition rate of a spinning electron. It is clear that we are not running out of problems to solve. In fact, contrary to some rumors that we are reaching an end to physics, the more we learn the more primitive our previous understanding appears, and the more challenging the problems become. (p223)

On Academia and 'Belief' in Scientific Theories

After about 45 years, I now know that if the academic theoreticians at that time had not forced his observations into fashionable molds, we might at least not have started off modern cosmology with the wrong fundamental assumption. We could be much further along in understanding our relation to a much larger, older universe - a universe which is continually unfolding from many points within itself.
..the problem is pervasive throughout astronomy and, contrary to its projected image, endemic throughout most of current science. Scientists, particularly at the most prestigious institutions, regularly suppress and ridicule findings which contradict their current theories and assumptions.

One thing has been accomplished, though I now understand what should be called the statistics of nihilism. It can be reduced to a very simple axiom: "No matter how many times something new has been observed, it cannot be believed until it has been observed again."
In view of all the other evidence known to show that quasars, and 3C273 in particular, belonged to the Virgo Cluster, I gloomily came to the ironic conclusion that if you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.

I had long ago learned that colloquia were events of intense social pressure, and that comments from the floor which questioned the assumptions of the speaker and were not explainable in a few sentences were neither understood nor welcome.

The greatest mistake in my opinion, and the one we continually make, is to let the theory guide the model. After a ridiculously long time it has finally dawned on me that establishment scientists actually proceed on the belief that theories tell you what is true and what is not true! Of course that is absurd - observations and experiments describe objects that exist- they cannot be "right" or "wrong". Theory is just a language that can be used to discuss and summarize relationships between observations. The model should be completely empirical and tell us what relationships between fundamental properties are required.

This is the kind of theory we are looking for - simple, capable of being visualized- one that can connect together the puzzling observational facts that presently confound understanding. It seems to me that this should be the working hypothesis that is useful in opening up new directions of investigation until further paradoxes are encountered. We are certainly not at the end of science. Most probably we are just at the beginning!

In 1964, Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar proposed a theory of gravitation (I would now prefer to call it a theory of mass) which had its origin in Mach's principle. According to this theory every particle in the universe derives its inertia from the rest of the particles in the universe. Imagine an electron just born into the universe before it has time to "see" any other particles in its vicinity. It has zero mass because there is nothing to operationally measure it against. As time goes on it receives signals from a volume of space that enlarges at the velocity of light, and contains larger and larger numbers of particles. Its mass grows in proportion to the number and strength of the signals it receives.

But in a very fundamental sense, the Machian physics which we depend on to fit the observations- that is what bridges the gap between classical dynamics and quantum mechanics. Because the particle "feels" the mass with which it communicates inside its light horizon, it is in contact through an electromagnetic wave whose particle aspect materializes and dematerializes like a quantum.
Cosmologically, the physics that assumes particle masses constant with time is not valid. What goes on in the rest of the universe affects what happens everywhere else. In addition to the pictures they form in their minds,

I think it is very important for humans to realize that the fundamental particles that make up their bodies and brains, and thus they themselves, are in some ill understood way in continual contact with the rest of the universe.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><center>

Two World Systems Revisited:

A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang

Eric J. Lerner


IV Why is the Big Bang still dominant?</center>


All the basic predictions of the Big Bang theory have been repeatedly refuted by observation. The theory is now cluttered with a multiplying collection of ad-hoc hypotheses, such as the existence of dark, or non-baryonic matter and dark energy, for which there is no empirical evidence. Indeed, continued discovery of more ordinary matter in the form of white dwarfs and diffuse plasma clouds has further decreased the ability of theorists to claim that there is far more matter detected by gravitational attraction than can be accounted for by ordinary matter[43].


Currently there are at least eight known contradictions between theory and observation: the abundances of 4He, 3He, and 7Li are too low; there is too much dispersion in the high-z value of D abundances; the halo white dwarfs would have produced too much helium; the voids are far too large and old; there is a complete lack of evidence for the existence of cold dark mater; and there is evidence for absorption of long wavelength radiation in the IGM. Yet in no cases are these contradiction viewed as reasons for questioning the Big Bang theory.


In many cases, every effort is made to either attack or manipulate the data so as to reduce the contradiction with theory. For example, in the early '90's He abundances were measured as relatively low, implying (given BBN) a high primordial value of D abundance. But when later observations showed that D abundances in high-Z objects were low, the quoted value for He abundance mysteriously began to move upwards, ultimately by five to ten standard deviations, so as to minimize the contradiction with theory, even if this required the arbitrary elimination of data from the samples.


When data manipulation failed, even the most blunt contradictions of theory and observation are viewed by Big Bang advocates as, at most, the indications of "new physics", new parameters. For example, Pebbles, in considering the void phenomenon, admits that there is an "apparent inconsistency between theory and observation", but does not conclude that theory is in any way imperiled[44], rather only that an "adjustment of the model" may be necessary. Similarly, Cyburt et al[15] conclude that there are "clear contradictions" between BBN predictions and light element abundances, but conclude that "systematic uncertainties have been underestimated", not that the theory is wrong'




Where all else fails, new arbitrary concepts and parameters are introduced, such as dark matter and dark energy. Consistently new observations have led to new parameters, so that the number of adjustable parameters in cosmological theories has increased exponentially with time, approximately doubling each decade.


The plasma cosmology approach has been supported by thousands of times less resources than has the Big Bang, but it has presented alternative explanations for many of the basic phenomena of the universe, has predicted new phenomena, and has not been contradicted by any evidence. Yet the Big Bang remains by far the domain cosmological model. It is appropriate to ask why this is so.


Four hundred years ago, a similar situation existed, at least in Catholic countries. Sixty year after the formulation of Copernican hypothesis, the Ptolemaic view of the solar system remained the dominant one among Continental astronomers. Galileo's elegant comparison of the Copernican and Ptolemaic systems, his Dialog on Two World Systems, should have ended any scientific doubt as to the validity of the Copernican approach. Yet many additional decades would past before the Copernican system, already accepted at that time in England, would be accepted in the Catholic areas of Europe.


There is no mystery as to why this was so in the sixteenth century. The Ptolemaic theory was a state-supported scientific theory. The Catholic Church's advocacy of this theory would not have much mattered if the Catholic states had not given the Church the power to enforce, with state backing, its ideological edicts. Galileo, for his pro-Copernican writing, was subject to a civil penalty--house arrest-- and famously forced to recant under threat of far worse penalties.


Today, the situation is similar, although the penalties for dissent are milder: loss of funding rather than loss of liberty or life. The Big Bang survives not because of its scientific merits, but overwhelmingly because it is a state-supported theory. Funds for astronomical research and time on astronomical satellites are allocated almost exclusively by various governmental bodies, such as NSF and NASA in the United States. It is no secret that today, no one who pursues research that questions the Big Bang, who develops alternatives to the Big Bang, or, for the most part, who even investigates evidence that contradicts the Big Bang, will receive funding. The review committees that allocate these funds are controlled tightly by advocates of the Big Bang theory who refuse to fund anything that calls their work into question.


As a result, with very few exceptions, those who want to make a career in cosmology are constrained to work within the Big Bang framework--to do otherwise is to risk being cut off from funding, and, if a junior researcher, from tenure.


It is beyond the scope of this review to discuss how the Big Bang came to be state-supported theory(see [45] for a more detailed treatment). However, as long as such state support continues, it will be extremely difficult for cosmology to extricate itself from the dead-end of the Big Bang.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Found at www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

<center>Two World Systems Revisited:

A Comparison of Plasma Cosmology and the Big Bang

Eric J. Lerner



I. Introduction</center>


The dominant theory of cosmology, the Big Bang, is contradicted by observation, and has been for some time. The theory's predictions of light element abundance, large-scale structure, the age of the universe and the cosmic background radiation(CBR) are in clear contradiction with massive observational evidence, using almost any standard criteria for scientific validity. This situation is not new. In 1992, I reviewed these contradictions[1], and concluded that theory had already been clearly falsified. Since that time, the evidence against the Big Bang has only strengthened.


There is a second framework for cosmology--plasma cosmology. This approach, which assumes no origin in time for the universe and no hot, ultradense phase of universal evolution, uses the known laws of electromagnetism and the phenomena of plasma behavior to explain the main features of the universe. It was pioneered by Hannes Alfven, Carl-Gunne Falthammar and others [2-4] and has been developed since then by a small group of researchers including the present author and A.L. Peratt [5-13]. In contrast to the predictions of the Big Bang, which have been continuously falsified by observation, the predictions of plasma cosmology have continued to be verified.


The present review seeks to update the comparison between these two world systems in light of recent observations and theoretical developments, including some new results not yet published elsewhere. At the end of this review, I will consider some of the reasons why the Big Bang remains dominant in the field, despite its clear falsification by observation. In many respects this resembles the situation of four hundred years ago, when the clearly falsified Ptolemaic system remained dominant some 60 years after the introduction of the Copernican system.


There is , of course, a the third main cosmological perspective, the Steady State theory. However a systematic comparison of plasma cosmology and the steady state theory requires its own article and is outside the scope of this review.


II. The Abundances of Light Elements



Big Bang Nucleosynthesis.


Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN) predicts the abundance of four light isotopes(4He, 3He, D and 7Li) given only the density of baryons in the universe. These predictions are central to the theory, since they flow from the hypothesis that the universe went through a period of high temperature and density--the Big Bang. In practice, the baryon density has been treated as a free variable, adjusted to match the observed abundances. Since four abundances must be matched with only a single free variable, the light element abundances are a clear-cut test of the theory. In 1992, there was no value for the baryon density that could give an acceptable agreement with observed abundances, and this situation has only worsened in the ensuing decade.


The observational picture has improved the most for 7Li and D, and there is now no assumed baryon density that will provide a good fit to just those two abundances alone. In 1992, there were no measures of D abundance at high redshift and therefore at remote times. The "primordial" value for D abundance was calculated back from the present-day observed values of 1.65x10-5 relative to H by assuming the D was destroyed by recycling through stars. Delbourg-Salvador et al, for example[14] calculated that the primordial value was perhaps 6x10-5.


However, since 1998, D abundances have been measured in five high redshift QSO absorption line systems. Since the same systems show low abundances of heavy elements known to be created by stars, they are assumed to be close to a "primordial" or early- galactic abundance. The weighted average of these abundances is 2.78+-0.29x10-5,[15] much lower than the values that had been anticipated by BBN theorists a decade ago. According to BBN predictions, this range of D abundances would correspond to a range of baryon/photon number density h of from 5.9-6.4x10-10.


Lithium abundances in metal poor Pop II stars are also considered to be a measure of pre-galactic or at least early galactic abundances and exhibit a remarkably small variation (about 5%)[16]. Lithium abundances as a result can be very accurately measured as 1.23+0.68-0.32x10-10, relative to H, where the errors are 2 s limits[17]. BBN prediction based on 7Li abundance imply a firm upper limit on h, the baryon photon ratio, of 3.9x10-10, which is completely inconsistent with the prediction based on D.


A "best fit" h to these two abundances alone would be 4.9x10-10. Since this would predict values that are excess of 4s from observations for both 7Li and D, this pair of observations alone would exclude BBN at beyond a 6s level.


There is no plausible fix to this problem, which has been recognized by BBN theorists, but not ever as a challenge to the validity of the theory itself[15,17-20]. Attempts to hypothesize some stellar process that reduce the 7Li abundance by a factor of 2 or more are rendered totally implausible by the observed 5% variation in existing abundances. No plausible process could reduce the 7Li abundance so precisely in a wide range of stars differing widely in mass and rotation rates.


The situation becomes considerably worse for BBN when 4He is also considered. There are extensive measurements so 4He abundances in low-metallicity galaxies, yet the estimates of a minimal, or "primordial " value for 4He vary considerably, for reasons we will consider in section V. These various values determine a percentage of 4He by weight of 21.6+-0.6[21], 22.3+-0.2[22], 22.7+-0.5[23], 23.4+-0.3[24], or 24.4+-0.2[25].


By comparison, the BBN prediction for 4He abundance with the "best fit" value of h=4.9x10-10 is 24.4, which would be compatible only with one of the estimates[25] of primordial 4He from observations. It should be noted that this highest value was only obtained by arbitrarily excluding several of the galaxies that have the lowest 4He abundances and is therefore not an unbiased, statistically valid estimate. For the other cited values, the BB prediction is excluded at between a 3 s and 10 s level. Indeed, a value as high as 24.4 is excluded at a 3 s level on the basis of even individual low-metalicity galaxies, such as UM461(21.9+-0.[21].


While there is considerable controversy over interpretation of measurements of 3He abundances in the present-day galaxy, these measurements only add to the difficulties of BBN. Measurements indicating an abundance of 3He/H of 1.1+-0.2x10-5[26] make this an upper limit on the "primordial" value, since it is generally agreed that stars, on net, produce 3He. For BBN, this in turn implies that h&gt;6.0x10-10, making worse the conflicts with the observed values of lithium and 4He.


Even ignoring 3He, the current observations of just three of the four predicted BBN light elements preclude BBN at a level of at least 7 s. In other words, the odds against BBN being a correct theory are about 100 billion to one. It is important to emphasize that BBN is an integral part of the Big Bang theory. Its predictions flow from the basic assumption of the Big Bang, a hot dense origin for the universe. If BBN is rejected, the Big Bang theory must also be rejected.


Recently, Big Bang theorists have interpreted precision measurement of the anisotropy of the CBR as providing a direct measurement of the baryon density of the universe[15].(The CBR will be examined in more detail in section IV). These calculations imply h=6.14+-0.25 x10-10, a D abundance of 2.74+-0.2x10-5, a 7Li abundance of 3.76+1.03-0.38x10-10 and a 4He abundance of 24.84+-.04 %. While much has been made by Big Bang advocates of the agreement with D observations, overall this makes matters still worse for the validity of BBN, for the 7Li value alone is now excluded at a 7 s level, and the 4He is excluded at a 2 s level even for the highest estimate and at between a 4 s and 12 s level for the other estimates. Very conservatively, this increases the odds against BBN, and therefore against the Big Bang itself, being a valid theory to above 2 x10-14 to one. The overall discordance with observation is summarized in Fig.1.



Plasma theory of nucleosynthesis


In contrast to the extremely bad performance of BBN, the predictions of the plasma alternative have held up remarkably well. Plasma filamentation theory allows the prediction of the mass of condensed objects formed as a function of density. This leads to predictions of the formation of large numbers of intermediate mass stars during the formations of galaxies[8-10]. These stars produce and emit to the environment large amounts of 4He, but very little C, N and O. In addition cosmic rays from these stars can produce by collisions with ambient H and He the observed amounts of D and 7Li.


The plasma calculations, which contained no free variables, lead to a broader range of predicted abundances than does BBN, because the plasma theory hypothesizes a process occurring in individual galaxies, so some variation is to be expected. The range of values predicted for 4He is from 21.5 to 24.8 %. However, the theory is still tested by the observations, since the minimum predicted value remains a firm lower limit (additional 4He is of course produced in more mature galaxies). This minimum value is completely consistent with the minimum observed values of 4He abundance, such as UM461 with an abundance of 21.9+-0.8 .


Further confirmation of these 16-year old predictions is in the widely noted observations that no galaxies, indeed no stars, have been observed that are entirely free of heavier elements, which is in accord with the predictions of the plasma-based stellar production of light elements.


Deuterium production by the p+p-&gt;d+p reaction has been predicted by plasma theory to yield abundances of the order of 2.2x10-5[8]. While more precise calculations will have to be done to improve this figure and to define the range of values that are likely, it is notable that this prediction was made in 1989, at a time when no observations of high redshift D was available and the consensus values for primordial D from Big Bang theory were 3-4 times higher. Yet this predicted value lies within the range of observed high-z D values, although somewhat below the average D values.


In its present form, the plasma-stellar theory of light elements does not give a prediction for the absolute abundance of 7Li. The observed low and variable abundances of cosmic -ray spallation products of C, N, and O, which are 9Be and 11B in old stars, indicates that 7Li was probably formed by He-He fusion in the interstellar medium, but more modeling will be needed to develop concrete predictions.


The most dramatic confirmation of the predictions of the plasma-stellar model is in the discovery of large number of white dwarfs in the halo of the Milky Way. Since the theory predicts the formation of an initial population of intermediate-mass stars, it is a straightforward deduction that these stars must leave behind white dwarfs that should exist at present. Specifically the theory predicts that somewhat less than half the total mass of the galaxy should exist in the form of collapsed cores-either white dwarfs or neutron stars[27]. and for the intermediate stars, which are too small to become supernovae, the normal end-point would be white dwarfs.


Recent observations of high proper motion stars have shown that halo white dwarfs constitute a mass of about 1011 solar masses, comparable to about half the total estimated mass of the Galaxy[28-29]. While these observations have been sharply criticized, they have been confirmed by new observations[30]. Not only are the existence of these numerous white dwarfs confirmation of much earlier predictions by the plasma theory, they create new and insurmountable problems for BBN. Even if the progenitor stars were only 2-3M, a mass of He equal to about 10-15% of the mass of the remnant white dwarfs would be released into the ISM. This would account for at minimum 50% of the observed He abundance, reducing the possible contribution from the Big Bang to less than 12% of the total mass. Such a low production of 4He is impossible with BBN for a baryon/photon ratio even as low as 1x10-10. Thus the plasma model has successful predicted a new phenomenon, while the BBN model has been decisively contradicted by observation.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">