In the 19th century, scientists were working under the presumption that the universe was stable and, for practical purposes, infinite in all directions. They believed matter moved through a field that gave it form. They called this field an aether.
Then Einstein came along and discovered a way to calculate relativistic mechanics without the need for an aether. Einstein’s theory was subsequently backed up by experiments that seemed to show there was no aether of the type scientists had once presumed existed.
At the time Einstein first proposed his theories of bending space and relativity without an aether, he did not believe in a “Big Bang” expanding universe. The Big Bang was actually the brain child of a Catholic priest. It wasn’t until Hubble came along and showed that the spectra of distant galaxies seemed to shift toward the red end of the light spectrum in proportion to their brightness that Einstein finally conceded that the universe may actually be the product of a “Big Bang.” However, in the decades that followed, a mountain of contradictory evidence has been accumulating that undermines these assumptions.
Today, we are at a point where scientists are claiming over 90% of the universe is made out of matter and energy that we can’t see and can’t detect. They are claiming that infinitely dense objects exist (something Einstein also disagreed with.) They are claiming that stars the size of asteroids can spin around at near light speed and emit a focused beam of energy that is detectable across galactic distances. They are claiming that stable matter exists in the universe that violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. In fact, I could go on listing absolutely bizarre and unproven claims until I had enough theory to fill an entire book.
All of these bizarre theories are the result of a few fundamental unproven assumptions. These assumptions form the central dogma of modern cosmological theory:
1. On a large scale, space is electrically neutral. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity completely ignores anything electrical. It assumes gravity is the sole driving force of the universe.
2. Space and time are capable of “bending.” Exactly how space and time accomplish this feat is left completely undefined. I find it interesting that GR is completely predicated on gravity, but scientists have no idea how gravity actually works.
3. All red shifting of galaxy spectra is the product of a Doppler effect, which only leaves “expanding space” as the sole explanation for the observations.
Each one of those points has major problems. Whenever scientists observe data that runs counter to one of the points I just mentioned, they ignore it. Those three pillars of assumption are never questioned, no matter how much contradictory evidence is accumulated that says otherwise. Scientists would rather conjure up new hypothetical forms of matter and energy to explain the data instead of questioning any of those fundamental assumptions.
The latest round of insanity that undermines those points comes from observations of the amount of light we see around us. The Telegraph explains:
The universe is a pretty dark place – but according to astrophysicists it is much too dark.
Scientists have been left scratching their heads after noticing there is a huge deficit of light.
The amount of light in the universe can be measured accurately by studying tendrils of hydrogen which become ionized, or charged, when they encounter ultraviolet light.
The more ionized hydrogen you can spot, the more light should exist.
But, according to a new study in Astrophysical Journal Letters, the hydrogen tendrils suggest there is far more ultraviolet light around than is being emitted by galaxies and quasars.
An astonishing five times too much, in fact, and it is leading astrophysicists to speculate that the photons could be coming from an “exotic new source“, or even decaying dark matter.
It means that 80 per cent of light in the universe is effectively missing.
“It’s as if you’re in a big, brightly-lit room, but you look around and see only a few 40-watt light bulbs,” noted Carnegie’s Juna Kollmeier, lead author of the study. “Where is all that light coming from? It’s missing from our census.”
The journal paper the Telegraph article is predicated on can be found here.
As we can see, they are leaning towards yet another new hypothetical source of matter and energy to explain away contradictory evidence. These new hypothetical forms of matter and energy are only “necessary” because scientists absolutely refuse, under any circumstance, to question the three pillars of dogma that prop up the standard model of cosmology.
A simple explanation for this observation comes, yet again, from Hannes Alfvén. Alfvén was a Nobel prize winning plasma physicist who theorized that space was not electrically neutral, and that electricity played a massive roll in the large scale structure of the universe.
Alfvén proved that when a neutral gas, such as non-ionized hydrogen, met with a field of ionized gas (plasma), the neutral gas would start to ionize. The “critical ionization velocity” is the relative velocity between a neutral gas and a plasma, at which the neutral gas will start to ionize. If more energy is supplied, the velocity of atoms will not exceed the critical ionization velocity until the gas becomes almost fully ionized. This fact of science has been proven repeatedly in laboratory experiments around the world.
This effect is capable of explaining why we see so much ionized hydrogen, yet see so little ultraviolet light. Of course, if this effect is the cause of the ionized hydrogen, this would undermine the first pillar of dogma that I listed. No scientist would dare question this fundamental dogma of cosmology, so this potential explanation is ignored.
Here’s a paper showing that interstellar neutral hydrogen emission spectra manifest several families of linewidths whose numerical values appear to be related to the critical ionization velocities of the most abundant interstellar atomic species. This means strong evidence exists that supports this effect being the cause of the excess ionized hydrogen. In fact, I would call it proof that the CIV effect is the cause of the ionized hydrogen. To quote the author, “Confirmation of the role of the CIV effect in interstellar space is suggested by the discovery of an association between high-frequency continuum emission peaks and HI structure.”
Physicist Wal Thornhill writes, “You’re right Michael about the critical ionization effect. I’m appalled by the nonsense ideas expressed in the [Telegraph] article. Until cosmology is handed over to plasma experimentalists and Alfvén is listened to there will be no real progress in the subject.”
We can detect magnetic fields in space which, according to Maxwell’s equations, means electricity must be flowing in space to produce them. It is impossible to have a magnetic field without moving electrons. Electrons only move in response to charge imbalance. Once an electron is moving, we have an electric current.
Scientists have no explanations for why we observe large scale magnetic fields around galaxies and galaxy clusters. The so-called “shock injection problem” that arises in explanations of these fields is ignored. In fact, anything that might suggest electricity is flowing in space plasma (which it must in order for it to remain in a plasma state) is ignored. If you cut off the electric current to any plasma, it will cease to be a plasma in relatively short order.
Scientists brush these fields off by saying the charge is “frozen in” to the fields. Meaning they think magnetic fields can exist without any electric current being present. This is a violation of conservation laws in physics, yet this is what they claim! Alfvén created MHD theory, which treats plasma as if there is no current running through it. MHD theory is used by modern scientists to describe virtually all astrophysical plasma today.
I find it interesting that they cite Alfvén’s theorem to support their outrageous claims. Alfvén referred to his own theory saying:
“I thought that the frozen-in concept was very good from a pedagogical point of view, and indeed it became very popular. In reality, however, it was not a good pedagogical concept but a dangerous “pseudo-pedagogical concept.” By pseudo-pedagogical I mean a concept which makes you believe that you understand a phenomenon whereas in reality you have drastically misunderstood it.
I never totally believed in it myself.“
Alfvén goes on to say:
“M. Azar has studied how a number of the most used textbooks in astrophysics treat important concepts like double layers, critical velocity, pinch effects and circuits. He has found that students using these textbooks remain essentially ignorant of even the existence of these, in spite of the fact that some of them have been well known for half a century The conclusion is that astrophysics is too important to be left in the hands of the astrophysicists.”
Those statements come from the guy who won the Nobel prize for creating MHD theory in the first place! You can’t have a magnetic field without an electric current! Dr. Michael Clarage talks about the difference between mathematical modeling and real plasma here. In the same interview, Clarage notes that potential explanations of the shock injection problem I mentioned earlier, in regards to the solar environment, don’t hold up.
Space is electrified, nothing cannot bend and red shift is not caused by “expanding space.” This is just one more piece of evidence, among a massive list of evidence, that undermines the standard model of cosmology.
Here’s a tutorial that explains what’s actually going on in space:
- ^ Hannes Alfvén “On the cosmogony of the solar system”, in Stockholms Observatoriums Annaler (1942) Part I Part II Part III FULL TEXT
- ^ Hannes Alfvén, On the Origin of the Solar System. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954 ACADEMIC BOOK
- ^ Hannes Alfvén, Collision between a nonionized gas and a magnetized plasma, Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 32, p. 710, 1960