Thunderbolts of the Gods

NobbyNobbs

Gazerbeam's Protege
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
5,617
My woo-inclined father-in-law sent me a link to a video called "Thunderbolts of the Gods". In the e-mail, he provided a one-paragraph summary, as follows:

Challenge yourself, your peers, your teachers. Participate in a revolution in science and human evolution. Watch this film and in an hour know more than most NASA scientists about the fundamental force that forms and sustains the universe (summary below). Visit: www.thunderboltsdvd.com - to subscribe to a free newsletter that will keep you up to date on the latest discoveries in space and a revolutionary new interpretation of them - to purchase the DVD and\or Thunderbolts Of The Gods 'monograph' (book), The Thunderbolts Project calls into question not only countless modern scientific assumptions, but also the billions of dollars of big-science government and corporate funding that continues to preserve and entrench questionable theories - elevating them to the status of doctrine - while systematically excluding legitimate alternatives that threaten the status-quo. Alternatives that may represent the future of science. The Thunderbolts Project offers remarkably simple explanations for 'black holes', 'dark matter', the electric sun, comets that are NOT made of ice, planetary scarring and many other 'mysterious' phenomena. It proposes that much of the currently observable phenomena of deep space can be intelligently explained by already known principles of electricity. High school students get it immediately. A doctorate in higher math is not required. This extraordinary new theory also redefines ancient history, linking rock art images carved in basalt 5,000 years ago with identical images found only in Hubble photographs of deep space or in photographs of recently declassified high-energy plasma discharge experiments generated in a billion dollar lab. The Thunderbolts Project invites you to participate in this revolution, to test and even challenge its validity, or, if finding it rational and intriguing enough, to contribute to its expansion and further evolution. Thank you, The Thunderbolts Project

The film is an hour long, and I haven't yet taken the time to view it...it may be some time before I can. However, based on the description, my guard is up. Has anyone seen it? Is there a debunking? I'd love to address him on it, point by point.

Here's the link to the video.
 
I'm not going to waste a precious hour watching the video, but from a quick look at their web site (which actually takes many clicks to get past the sales pitch to any information) suggests much unsupported theoretical talk aimed at impressing folk without much knowledge of science. For example...

Apparently the Sun is not powered by nuclear fusion in its core but because it is "connected to the electric circuitry of the galaxy," as 'proven' (in Thunderbolts' view) by the fact sunspots are cooler in their centre than outside (see here). It's a shame because that article begins with quite a nice summary of the development of solar physics, then makes outrageous claims without any supporting evidence, while showing a complete lack of understanding of solar structure. For comparison with reality (i.e. theories that are supported by experiment), here's a nice starting point. Let me know if you need detailed arguments. I quite like solar physics :)
 
There was a very long thread about these topics started by Beachooser. I will try to find and link to it.

While there is something interesting in plasmacosmology, it has some weak points. Such as the assertion that quazars are associated with disrupted galaxies.

So while there maybe an anomalous redshift associated with quazers, it does not apply to the whole universe.

here you are Nobby (can I see your papers) Nobbs!

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90595

as I recall there is this assertion that these huge mega currents exist in space, another assertion thats omehow the currents explain the rotation of stars and a general complaint that they are ignored.
 
Last edited:
Choice ideas and quotes
Dark matter (along with dark energy, inflation, strings, black holes and other phenomena that may be nothing but mathematical constructs) are the foundations of the current Big Bang theory. If there's a problem with dark matter, there's a significant problem with Big Bang.

It's important to realize that they first inferred the presence of dark matter in our galaxy in order to explain the rotation curve for the stars in our galaxy around its center. But there is another possible explanation in that case besides dark matter. One that the Big Bang community largely ignores. That is the one promoted by plasma cosmologists which can be demonstrated in the lab and in computer models using well understood physics.

Why is it that I can pick almost any current book on the big bang and I will likely find hardly a mention of plasma and electromagnetism? Plasma comprises almost all of the matter in the observable universe and electromagetic fields are everywhere and demonstrably have a very powerful effect on plasmas (in fact, far more than gravity). Plasma cosmologists do not ignore gravity. Why is it that Big Bang cosmologists consistently ignore plasmas and the effect of electromagnetism on them? Is it because they are too invested in their *cool* mathematical ghosts?
If 99% of the matter in the observed universe consists of plasmas which respond to electromagnetic forces and electromagnetic forces have been observed everywhere we've looked in the universe, and they are vastly stronger than gravity forces, why do you think that electromagnetic forces have played no role in the formation and operation of galaxies or the interactions between galaxies? That certainly seems to be what the Big Bang Astronomers are saying since they hardly ever mention electric plasmas and electric forces in anything they write.
Perhaps because the amount of $$$$$ spent on plasma cosmology is a drop in an ocean compared to what they are spending to prop up Big Bang?

There was never proof offered of the following
Well how could you tell? Do we have instruments that could detect such things? The fact is the instruments we have show large electric fields at work as far out as they can look. We see electromagnetic forces influencing the interaction of colliding galaxies. We know that intergalactic space ... especially that space as it would have been billions and billions of years ago when the bulk of the galaxies were first forming ... would have been filled with vast amounts of plasma. We know that everywhere we find plasmas, we find electric and magnetic fields in play. So why do you ASSUME (because that's what you are doing) that there are not electric fields out there? Dogma?
Just curious. Have you, Frank, (or anyone else on this thread) read the new book by Donald Scott titled "Electric Sky"? Deep Impact and many other topics are discussed in the book. I'm curious what you have to say about the specific evidence he presents concerning flaws in Big Bang and specific evidence suggesting the plasma cosmologists are right.

And just for the record, he's not just an author/lecturer ... he's a electrical engineer who taught the subject at a major university for over 39 years. He says he got interested in cosmology when he heard astronomers and astrophysicists making claims about electrical and magnetic phenomena that are simply false. And I think proves it in the book.

No, not according to me, according to people who seem to understand plasmas, electric currents and magnetic fields (and afterall, everything we see on and above the sun is current carrying plasmas and magnet fields). If you think you know all the answers, then tell us why if the energy is produced deep inside the sun by nuclear fusion, there is a corona?

Here's what a mainstream astronomer says: http://www.alma.nrao.edu/science/basics/solarwind.html "One of the great mysteries of the Sun is why it has a solar corona. At the height of the photosphere (the visible surface of the Sun), the temperature is ~5880K. The temperature then decreases with height for several hundred kilometers. But then something amazing occurs: at greater heights, the temperature increases, gradually at first, and then suddenly to ~3 million degrees! "

Can you do better than him? Or shall we look at what Plasma scientists suggest is happening on the sun (according to Donald Scott's book, "The Electric Sky"). I paraphrase and shorten his explanation ...

The big difference from the standard model is that plasma cosmologists don't believe the energy is being produced in the sun, but is a result of a difference in charge between a positively charged sun and a negative current carrying interstellar medium. This model was developed by a now deceased engineer named Ralph Juergens back in 1979.

It goes on for quite a while, Beachooser finaly quit and stopped posting.
 
I like the bit about electromagnetic forces being stronger than gravity. No mention whatsoever of distances involved. Were those quotes from our forum, or the other?
 
Incidentally, can anybody speak to the credentials of the Thunderbolt Team?

http://www.thunderbolts.info/team.htm

I have a feeling most are quacks, since they actually describe many of their members as comparative mythologists, whatever that is, and note that one guy has "university training in Astronomy." Wow, university training! Does the Astronomy 101 survey science class my idiot freshmen year roommate took count?
 
I thought this was going to be a thread about farting. Turns out it sort of is.
 
Let's put it this way:

One physicist. No astronomers.

How many groundbreaking theories of astrophysics do you expect?

Pry a little deeper, here's the catastrophists chiming in. You know who they are, right? Ever hear of Immanuel Velikovski's book, Worlds in Collision? Lately they've taken to scaring the customers by running around screaming about how Saturn used to hang over the North Pole. I mean, seriously, what do you say to someone who says that to you? "No?" "You're insane?" "What have you been smoking?"

And where you get this is a bunch of comparative literature people who've been deluded into thinking that just because they got some edumacation, that's all anybody got, so they're "scientists." Archaeology, that's a science. History might be. Comparative mythology? Hmmm. Maybe, maybe not. Depends who's doing it. When whoever that is starts talking about serious astrophysicists like they're psychotic, I stop listening, just the way I stopped listening about the time it became clear that the philosophers had mistaken themselves for scientists. Deconstruct this.

I'm not saying, don't search for consilience. I'm saying, if you go wandering off the reservation, make sure you hire a qualified tour guide, and check his credentials. Somebody comes up with something like this, I wanna see some PhD astrophysicists, not a bunch of English majors. You with me?

ETA: Oh, and as far as the physics goes, well, don't go there. Just don't.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean? What did it say?

I was referring to this, mentioned in an above post:

If 99% of the matter in the observed universe consists of plasmas which respond to electromagnetic forces and electromagnetic forces have been observed everywhere we've looked in the universe, and they are vastly stronger than gravity forces, why do you think that electromagnetic forces have played no role in the formation and operation of galaxies or the interactions between galaxies? That certainly seems to be what the Big Bang Astronomers are saying since they hardly ever mention electric plasmas and electric forces in anything they write.
 
If 99% of the matter in the observed universe consists of plasmas which respond to electromagnetic forces and electromagnetic forces have been observed everywhere we've looked in the universe, and they are vastly stronger than gravity forces, why do you think that electromagnetic forces have played no role in the formation and operation of galaxies or the interactions between galaxies? That certainly seems to be what the Big Bang Astronomers are saying since they hardly ever mention electric plasmas and electric forces in anything they write.

That quote, as well as a bunch of others, is not linked or attributed to anyone. Who said it? And where?

The BAUT threads are interesting, but every one of them is locked. What kind of forum is that?
 
That quote, as well as a bunch of others, is not linked or attributed to anyone. Who said it? And where?

The BAUT threads are interesting, but every one of them is locked. What kind of forum is that?


All of the quotes I listed are from the thread by Beachooser, they are rather standard for Thunderbolts as well although I believe that Beachooser is original in text.

I am sorry I did not attribute my quote

that one is here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2880838&postcount=32
 
Last edited:
Ahh! Thanks. It wasn't clear where or who or even what forum. I wasn't even sure what the quoted text was talking about.

If 99% of the matter in the observed universe consists of plasmas which respond to electromagnetic forces and electromagnetic forces have been observed everywhere we've looked in the universe, and they are vastly stronger than gravity forces, why do you think that electromagnetic forces have played no role in the formation and operation of galaxies or the interactions between galaxies? That certainly seems to be what the Big Bang Astronomers are saying since they hardly ever mention electric plasmas and electric forces in anything they write. :D

After doing a little research, there seems to be all kinds of interesting stuff associated with the electric sun theory. My ignorance on these matters is far greater than I would have thought, if I thought about it at all.
 
Electromagnetism is waaaay more powerful than gravity. Duh. But I didn't realize that it also is infinite in reach, and also obeys the inverse square law. The big difference seems to be that EM can be blocked/absorbed/neutralized, while gravity can't.

I also didn't know lightning emits X-rays until I followed a BAUT thread based on this (Thunderbolts).
 
Last edited:
Electromagnetism is waaaay more powerful than gravity. Duh. But I didn't realize that it also is infinite in reach, and also obeys the inverse square law. The big difference seems to be that EM can be blocked/absorbed/neutralized, while gravity can't.

I also didn't know lightning emits X-rays until I followed a BAUT thread based on this (Thunderbolts).


Electromagnetism is way more powerful than gravity....at short range. Over the long haul, gravity reigns. Which is why Newton's Laws, rather than Maxwell's equations, explain why the moon is in orbit.
 
The gods are hurling cows this month, from what I've heard. Better hope you've just been to church when one lands on your hood. Trust me on this, I read evidence of it somewhere recently.
 
Pry a little deeper ...

If you're gonna put your hand into the cookie-jar, put it in up to the elbow!

...here's the catastrophists chiming in. You know who they are, right? Ever hear of Immanuel Velikovski's book, Worlds in Collision?

If you're going to argue reductio ad absurdam, cut straight to the most absurd. Velinovsky is much neglected these days, but well worth dusting off and waving at people.

Lately they've taken to scaring the customers by running around screaming about how Saturn used to hang over the North Pole.

The cool dudes are the ones that claim they used to hang with him, back in the day.
 
Electromagnetism is way more powerful than gravity....at short range. Over the long haul, gravity reigns.

No, EM is a waaay more powerful force than gravity, and obeys the same inverse square law as gravity. The effects of a nearby super nova on our planet are not going to be in any way connected with the gravity of the situation, but the EM radiation. Can you understand why?

In the long haul, gravity from distant bodies does not influence us in any meaningful way, unlike the EM radiation, which is a real issue. EM from distant bodies is influencing us at every moment. Because of our protective atmosphere, and magnetosphere, we don't suffer much from the extremely powerful EM radiation that bathes every bit of the planet, all the time. This doesn't mean it isn't there.

To make this obvious, on a space flight to the moon, or to mars, anywhere really outside the protection of our planet, nobody is worried about the effect of gravity, either from the sun or distant stars, but we know that the EM radiation is a serious issue. The EM from the sun, as well as Cosmic Rays, from very distant bodies, is a real and ever present danger. Even just being on the ISS greatly increases the exposure to radiation, and also the risk of cataracts.

The gravity from distant bodies isn't even considered, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter. Nobody worries about the Sun's gravitational energy in orbit. The EM is another matter.

Over the long haul, gravity reigns.

I have no idea what that means. There is no contest between fundamental forces. To try and make this clear, simply reverse the claim, (which is also going to seem dumb).


Over the long haul, EM reigns. Which is why Maxwell's equations, rather than Newton's Laws, explain why the sun radiates energy.

See? What does that even mean?

Even at extreme close range, where gravity is very powerful, EM doesn't seem to care. Sunspots don't act the way they do because of gravity, not do charged particles and EM radiating from the sun. Which is kind of cool, really. Gravity doesn't effect EM, and EM doesn't effect gravity. (Or so says current theory.)

(Yeah, I know, but the bending of EM near gravity sources is considered a warping of space time, gravity doesn't slow or really "bend" EM radiation, it just seems like it, because of the warped spacetime)

I think the reason otherwise intelligent people consider the force of gravity more "powerful" than the electromagnetic force, is because somehow they forget what EM is, what the electromagnetic field is, what it means.

What we call "light" is actually a propagating oscillatory disturbance in the electromagnetic field, or in other words, an electromagnetic wave. Electromagnetic radiation, that force that some think gravity trumps, is everything from radio waves to visible light to gamma rays. Even atoms and molecules are dominated by the EM force.

Of course the whole idea that gravity trumps or EM trumps is a bit absurd. But interesting. Practically all the phenomena we encounter in daily life is due to the electromagnetic force, except for gravity.

And the two don't effect each other much at all. Now that I think about it, that is rather strange really. The two most important, ever present forces that effect everything, don't effect each other. How can that be?
 
Over at BAUT this group has been there for a while trying to push the E;ectric Universe or Plasma Universe stuff. They in general do not what they talking about. One said the suns core was made of solid iron and took three months for him finally realize he did not know why the iron has not melted with the surface temperature being higher then the boiling point of iron.
 
If you're gonna put your hand into the cookie-jar, put it in up to the elbow!
Oh, **** yeah. Why screw around?

If you're going to argue reductio ad absurdam, cut straight to the most absurd. Velinovsky is much neglected these days, but well worth dusting off and waving at people.
Hey, I see people dusting off Edgar Cayce and waving him around every so often. Velikovsky ain't so bad compared to that crud. Bad enough, though.

You know, I think there's certain styles in woo. They keep coming back around again, you with me? Like how they say, wait long enough, and all those old dresses and wide-lapel suits and stuff are back "in" again. Wait ten years, here's Blavatsky again! Oh, look, there's Nostradamus! It's like, the conservation of woo, or something.

The cool dudes are the ones that claim they used to hang with him, back in the day.
'Course they did. Have another bong hit, dude. Then freak out on this wild stuff about how the planets all got rearranged and all those scientist dudes, they're hidin' it because the Saturnians told them to. See, they're gonna all emigrate to the Moon on sekrit rockets which is what they're REALLY hidin' down all them holes in Montana an' Dakota an' ****.
 
Oh please. Wikipedia? Why should I trust those nutjobs? :D

I know about Velikovsky, I thought maybe there was also a Velinovsky.
 
No, EM is a waaay more powerful force than gravity, and obeys the same inverse square law as gravity. The effects of a nearby super nova on our planet are not going to be in any way connected with the gravity of the situation, but the EM radiation. Can you understand why?

In the long haul, gravity from distant bodies does not influence us in any meaningful way, unlike the EM radiation, which is a real issue. EM from distant bodies is influencing us at every moment. Because of our protective atmosphere, and magnetosphere, we don't suffer much from the extremely powerful EM radiation that bathes every bit of the planet, all the time. This doesn't mean it isn't there.

To make this obvious, on a space flight to the moon, or to mars, anywhere really outside the protection of our planet, nobody is worried about the effect of gravity, either from the sun or distant stars, but we know that the EM radiation is a serious issue. The EM from the sun, as well as Cosmic Rays, from very distant bodies, is a real and ever present danger. Even just being on the ISS greatly increases the exposure to radiation, and also the risk of cataracts.

The gravity from distant bodies isn't even considered, for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter. Nobody worries about the Sun's gravitational energy in orbit. The EM is another matter.



I have no idea what that means. There is no contest between fundamental forces. To try and make this clear, simply reverse the claim, (which is also going to seem dumb).




See? What does that even mean?

Even at extreme close range, where gravity is very powerful, EM doesn't seem to care. Sunspots don't act the way they do because of gravity, not do charged particles and EM radiating from the sun. Which is kind of cool, really. Gravity doesn't effect EM, and EM doesn't effect gravity. (Or so says current theory.)

(Yeah, I know, but the bending of EM near gravity sources is considered a warping of space time, gravity doesn't slow or really "bend" EM radiation, it just seems like it, because of the warped spacetime)

I think the reason otherwise intelligent people consider the force of gravity more "powerful" than the electromagnetic force, is because somehow they forget what EM is, what the electromagnetic field is, what it means.

What we call "light" is actually a propagating oscillatory disturbance in the electromagnetic field, or in other words, an electromagnetic wave. Electromagnetic radiation, that force that some think gravity trumps, is everything from radio waves to visible light to gamma rays. Even atoms and molecules are dominated by the EM force.

Of course the whole idea that gravity trumps or EM trumps is a bit absurd. But interesting. Practically all the phenomena we encounter in daily life is due to the electromagnetic force, except for gravity.

And the two don't effect each other much at all. Now that I think about it, that is rather strange really. The two most important, ever present forces that effect everything, don't effect each other. How can that be?


Oops. When I said gravity was stronger over long distances, I was thinking "nuclear forces" and saying "electromagnetic". Mea culpa.
 
Gravity does have an effect at very long ranges, but it is in cosmology and the dark matter theory that the effect of the EM forces matter to the plasma cosmologists.

Observation:

Galaxies that are farther away appear to be redshifted to a greater extent. In that their spectrums are shifted to the IR (visible light) end of the spectrum. The greater the distance the greater the redshift.

This led Hubble to theorise that the universe is expanding. And plasma cosmology can not explain this effect.


Observation two:

There is a certain amount of visible matter in galaxies, when stars in galaxies are observed they appear to be rotating faster around the galactic cores faster than can be accounted for by the visible matter.

Hypothesis: there is a source of gravity that is not accounted for by the visible matter. IE dark matter: a source of gravitational atraction not yet detected.

Hypothesis: the EM forces of a galaxy are sufficient to create this rotational speed.
(I have not seen this explained well yet, just a lot of handwaving.)

Observation three:

Halton Arp looked at galaxies that appear to have been disrupted in some way, usually through collision. There is the Arp catalog of such interesting objects and they are some of the best Hubble views as well. Halton also began lloking at quasi stellar objects and he felt that there appeared to be an association between quasi stellar objects and disrupted galaxies.

However the biggest thing he noticed was that the redshift of the quasi stellar objects was much higher that the associated disrupted galaxies. He concluded that the redshift of the quasistellar onbjects was anamalous and that the redshift value was not consistent withe the redshift of the associated galaxies.

Hypothesis: Quasars associated with Arp galaxies are anamalous in that the distance implied by the redshift is not appropriate.

Hypothesis: sampling effects led Arp to belive that the galaxies were associated with quasars, when it is a matter of visual alignment not a matter of association.

Some, maybe Arp concluded that the redshift of galaxies is not associated with distance. therefore the big bang theory is a false one. Plasma cosmology is alleged to be a competitor.
 
If they are marketing it under "hypothetical science", which things like multiverses also encompass, it's different. It's the very least interesting when an educated affair.
 
Electromagnetism is not stronger than gravity. It really makes very little sense to compare the strength of any forces unless you also specify the quantities and distances involved. How would you compare them? The force from one gram of matter compared to one Coulomb of matter might be stronger, but those are completely arbitrary units. Why not choose one megagram of matter and one electron?

Sure, if you take two electrons, the EM force is stronger than the gravitational force, but so what? That only says that it is stronger in that particular case, not that one fundamental force is bigger than the other. It's like saying what's longer, a piece of string or a plank of wood? The answer depends entirely on how long the string is and how long the wood is.
 
Hey, I see people dusting off Edgar Cayce and waving him around every so often. Velikovsky ain't so bad compared to that crud. Bad enough, though.

At least Velikovsky (:o) claimed to be purely scientific, as I recall. It was all double-speak and the begging of many questions, but quite ground-breaking in its way. Truthers are, I think, direct descendents.

You know, I think there's certain styles in woo. They keep coming back around again, you with me? Like how they say, wait long enough, and all those old dresses and wide-lapel suits and stuff are back "in" again. Wait ten years, here's Blavatsky again! Oh, look, there's Nostradamus! It's like, the conservation of woo, or something.

As long as a yellowing paperback survives for some adolescent to stumble, across, the woo lives.
 
That quote, as well as a bunch of others, is not linked or attributed to anyone. Who said it? And where?

The BAUT threads are interesting, but every one of them is locked. What kind of forum is that?

The threads got locked mostly because there was a new rule brought about by Fraser and Phil to limit of thrity days of posting to a certain thread, then they got locked down. The reason is mostly is because some threads went on forever without the OP answering any questions about their thoeries, they say mostly as a place to get help on their theories and expose to a slightly larger audience. Also some them created sock puppets, and abused the Q&A section of the BAUT forum.
 
Damn. I just found all the "official" threads about any and all mentions of any alt theories there. Turns out almost all threads are locked in the ATM (against the mainstream) section. And it is against the rules to even start a new discussion. If the JREF was that tight assed the CT forum here would be pretty much dead. And boring as well.
 
Beachooser finaly quit and stopped posting.

Hi David. Unfortunately, I had other, more pressing things to do at the time and had basically said what I wanted to say on the topic. Plus I knew that I'd probably not open any of the minds that were posting if I hadn't already in that long thread (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=99727). But since there seems to be a new crop of perhaps interested JREFers, I'll now post something I've been working on as time permits in anticipation of renewed interest. It's a review and summary of some of the material I presented on that thread, as well as some additional material that demonstrate (I think) how it is the alternative/plasma/electric community rather than the mainstream/Big Bang/gravity-only community that has been most successful in predicting and explaining astronomical observations over time.

I shall break the discussion into somewhat separate topics. Hopefully it will answer some of the questions you posted near the end of the last thread and make it easier for the others to grapple with the issues at hand.

Let's start with the issue of redshift because of it's important role in Big Bang cosmology.

Part 1 - Problems With Big Bang's Interpretation Of Redshift Compared To Observations

Vesto Slipher started measuring the Doppler shift of galaxies about 1910, although at the time he didn't know that's what they were. He, like others in his era, called them nebula. Almost all of the objects showed a redshift ... that is, the frequency of the visible light coming from the object was shifted towards lower frequencies ... towards the infrared portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. For understandable reasons, this was suggestive that the objects were collectively moving away from us. That is where matters stood until 1922 when Alexander Friedmann derived equations from Einstein's theory of General Relativity that indeed suggested the universe should either be expanding or collapsing. Shortly after, in 1924, Hubble measured the distance to the nearest spiral "nebula" and showed that they weren't nebula at all, but other galaxies filled with stars just like the Milky Way. In 1927, Georges Lemaître independently derived Friedmann's equations and for the first time, it was concluded in a paper that the recession of the objects was due to the expansion "of the universe". His model included a redshift/distance relationship similar to that which in 1929 Hubble and Humason obtained by fitting a line through the observational data that had been collected so far. This redshift relationship (with considerable modification to the Hubble constant) would eventually be used by Big Bang cosmologists to interpret the distance to all objects in the universe based solely on their redshift. However, it wasn't until 1931 that Lemaître actually published a paper suggesting that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom" or "cosmic egg". Therefore, one might consider 1931 as the real birthdate of the *Big Bang* theory, in which case, Big Bang theorists did not "predict" the expansion as some proponents claim. But in any case, the story doesn't end there ...

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Watch this film and in an hour know more than most NASA scientists about the fundamental force that forms and sustains the universe."

A whole hour to learn cosmology?

I don't see why it takes so long. It only took me fifteen minutes to learn brain surgery, so how much harder can astrophysics be?
 
Last edited:
Part 2. Problems With Using Black Holes To Explain Quasars And Jets From Quasars

Say I still haven't convinced you at this point that there is a problem with claiming quasars are distant objects based on redshift or blackholes. Is there any other reason to doubt those claims? Absolutely ...

One of the best reasons are the jets that are sometimes seen coming from quasars. 3C273 is no exception. Recent images of the quasar show 10 regularly spaced knots that form a immense jet. The first knot supposedly produces as much energy as most Seyfert galaxies. Because of their immense distance, the jets from some quasars must be largest contiguous structures in the universe. http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20020216/fob5.asp states that quasar PKS 1127-145 produces an X ray-emitting jet that projects at least 1 million light-years into space. According to the article, "The jet's great length makes it unlikely that the quasar could provide the energy for the X rays". So astrophysicists are forced to postulate still another magic gnome ... a "novel" (in their own words) interaction between the charged particles in the jet and photons in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The theory is that "when photons in the CMB collide with electrons in the jet, the electrons get a boost in energy and emit X rays." Now I don't know about you, but to me it looks like they are now stacking magic gnomes on top of magic gnomes on top of magic gnomes in order to explain the observations ... just to keep black holes, their model of quasars and Big Bang alive.

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rational scientists would by now conclude that dark matter does not exist ... especially when after 30 years all attempts to identify what constitutes dark matter have utterly failed. But Big Bang theorists have obstinately ignored the above work and refused to abandon the notion of dark matter because they've too much invested in their dark matter gnome. Too many careers are at stake. Too many reputations. Too many expensive projects.
Oh, you're one of those.

This should be good for a laugh.
 
Part 3 - Problems With Big Bang's Explanation Of Pulsars And Supernova. Plasma Cosmology's Solution

Now let's consider some other astronomical objects that produce jets starting with pulsars?

To explain the jets from what astronomers call neutron/pulsar stars, Big Bang astrophysicists again call on the God of Magic Gnomes. Not only do they invent yet another form of matter that has never been observed here on earth (I ask you, folks, according to our current understanding, are groups of neutrons by themselves stable?), they again have to also use the bogus magnetic field *theories* to explain the jets that come from them. And of course each new observation raises new questions about their theory and necessitates the addition of still more magic gnomes. Here is an example of what I mean:

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Part 4 - The Electric Sun Alternative As An Explanation Of Supernova And Other Stellar Phenomena

Another possible (and very interesting) explanation for supernova comes from a group of plasma cosmologists and electrical engineers who are claiming the standard fusion model of stars is just plain wrong ... that fusion is not what powers the sun. Their reason for claiming this is that the standard model astrophysicists are unable to logically explain the observed phenomena on and above the sun without resorting to nonsense like "magnetic reconnection". In fact, without such bogus physics, an interior fusion source for the energy emitted by the sun seems to directly contradict the observations. So what's the alternative?

Do not post copyrighted material in its entirety and do not hotlink images.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Back
Top Bottom