Electromagnetism vs Gravity

To Iaminexistance;

When a plasma theory can effectively answer...How does the Baryonic
Matter get here...it will have a chance of gaining some acceptance.

I just concluded a very long discussion with a gentleman on another alternative site, who was an Engineer with a background in thermodynamics, and very into Eric Lerner's plasma cosmology.

His concept was that Energy creates Gravity which when oscillated at lower frequencies creates Baryonic Matter.

Sorry, but Energy creating Gravity creating Baryonic Matter, in my opinion, doesn't work.

And Yes, where did the original Energy come from??? If you just say the universe has always existed, you don't have to answer that, but that doesn't make it correct!!!

If you would like to see a different view, check out A New Possibility in the Alternative section, and let me know what you think.

Thanks

RussT

S=G

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>originally posted by Iaminexistence</i>...this is an exception to the rule... that's an exception to the rule....<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Yea, BB reminds me of the internal combustion engine. At first it was so simple a child could fix it without a manual. Now look at it! Smog control devices for the smog control divices! Computers to debug the computers! Controlers to control the controllers! There's hardly room under the hood for a cat to curl up on a cold night!

Here are a couple pages that support my theory--

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesise an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do." --http://www.eutopia.no/BigBang.html

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">There is a revolution just beginning in astronomy/cosmology that will rival the one set off by Copernicus and Galileo. This revolution is based on the growing realization that the cosmos is highly electrical in nature. It is becoming clear that 99% of the universe is made up not of "invisible matter", but rather, of matter in the plasma state. Electrodynamic forces in electric plasmas are much stronger than the gravitational force.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
www.electric-cosmos.org/

The Big Bang Never Happened, Eric J. Lerner (that's the book i was talking about)

www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/bigbang.htm

here is Lerner's webpage: www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

Read them and tell me what you think

US AIR FORCE - Korean Linguist for life

I have and I did.

I will say this...that Eric Lerner's plasma concept "MAY" fit the nucleosynthesis in a galaxies star making process better than the Big Bang nucleosynthesis.

In my opinion, the Quasi Steady State Theory is also flawed in how it says the Baryonic Matter gets into our universe. I've already had this discussion with Tommy, but simply put... the Steady State says that New Baryonic Matter is being ejected from the cores of galaxies from a "singular" process. In my opinion, any Baryonic Matter being ejected from the core of any galaxy, was already Baryonic Matter. No "NEW" Matter is created there!

In the end, we all have to go with what we feel most comfortable with. There are numerous good theories to hang your hat on.

The problem is, in my opinion and quite a few others, NO ONE HAS GOT IT RIGHT YET!

I agree. Noone has it right yet, but I find it almost laughable that people are clinging onto the big bang theory when there is SO much going against it. Once they find proof for all the required supporting theories such as dark matter, etc... then I can start to believe it. I think that if people finally ditched this theory that is beginning to make no sense and started searching for other methods, then we would be much closer to the truth, and we may actually be able to do something with it. who knows? Next time they go to fix the theory, the big bang may say that dragons and wizards must exist for the theory to work as well...

Just as Plato's discoveries and theories could only take us so far, so too does modern sciences theories only take us so far. Forever will we be searching for the correct answer, most likely never finding it.

US AIR FORCE - Korean Linguist for life

I too have always felt the Big Bang was and is 'Flawed", and after much investigation, am now totally convinced it is!

[Forever will we be searching for the correct answer, most likely never finding it.]

I definitely do not believe this!!! Just in the same way we have been able, in the last 50 years or so, to figure out that our solar system was created from a Super Nova event some 6 billion years ago, so too will we be able to figure out how our universe came to be! Obviously, this is inherantly more difficult, since we do not have other universes to look at to glean this information from, but I do believe it can be done!

How the Baryonic Matter gets here, In My Opinion, is the key.
Which means, In My Opinion, that galaxy birth and formation is the key.
Which, In My Opinion, means...figuring out how the Super Massive Black Holes are made, is the real KEY!!!

A New Possibility covers all of this!!!

RussT

S=G