Origin of the Universe,,,,Bang or no Bang

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

Hello Coldcreation

you said



Get to know more on plasma.
DownloadPapers

Plasma Cosmology

Plasma Physics and Astrophysics Research Papers and Proposals


Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies
Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies

THE PLASMA UNIVERSE—THEORY AND BACKGROUND
TPU Intro

Extragalactic Astronomy
Centre for Interdisciplinary Plasma Science


Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster
ESA Science & Technology: Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster

30-Jun-06
The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning
News and Views From The Electric Universe


Most of the universe is plasma in one form or another. Plasma is the way to go in understanding the universe. This does not mean you do not consider gravity and electromagnetic forces.

So many people missunderstand what plasma is. Its not just an ion gas composite.

Ok, I'll check out these links, eventually.
I did read intentively, "The Big Bang Never Happened" by Eric Lerner and studied some of Hannes Alfvén's papers.

Correct me If I'm mistaken, it's been a couple years since I went over this material: According to plasma cosmology the universe is governed on the large-scale not by gravitation according general relativity as Einstein described, but by electromagnetic forces.

If that is the case then it is difficult to see how plasma cosmology, at least in its current form, can explain evolution of the large-scale structures (vis the universe in its entirety) when clearly electromagnetism is a short range force.

CC

CC

[Harry Costas]

Hello Coldcreation


Keep on reading you will find the answer to your question.

Gravity and electromanetic forces are both important.

The formation of ultra dense plasma matter is one of the most important steps in the recycling process.

Its amazing how the atome breaks down to nuetrons to quarks to preon particals and in so doing increases the density accordingly.

Giant stars sometimes go supernova creating a very dence matter that follows the neutrons to quarks to preon process. These particals create electromagnetic convectional currents that are able to create jets so powerful they eject material out from these ultra dense plasma matter either a neutron star or a so called black hole.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

Have a look at these

The Universe: Cosmology Quest

Universe - the cosmology quest 1 of 2 - Google...

(part 1)

Universe - the cosmology quest 2 of 2 - Google...

(part 2)

The pleasure of finding things out - RP Feynman -...

The pleasure of finding things out - RP Feynman -...

Very, very interesting

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

Hello Coldcreation

Get to know more on plasma.
DownloadPapers

Plasma Cosmology

Plasma Physics and Astrophysics Research Papers and Proposals

Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies
Plasma Theory of Hubble Redshift of Galaxies

THE PLASMA UNIVERSE—THEORY AND BACKGROUND
TPU Intro

Extragalactic Astronomy
Centre for Interdisciplinary Plasma Science


Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster
ESA Science & Technology: Magnetic heart of a 3D reconnection event revealed by Cluster

30-Jun-06
The IEEE, Plasma Cosmology and Extreme Ball Lightning
News and Views From The Electric Universe


Most of the universe is plasma in one form or another. Plasma is the way to go in understanding the universe. This does not mean you do not consider gravity and electromagnetic forces.

So many people missunderstand what plasma is. Its not just an ion gas composite.

For the next few days I will be looking into these links, in addition the the one you posted in a new thread. For some reason, these look more interesting.

More very soon.

Thanks for these links HC.

CC

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by coldcreation

More very soon.

Thanks for these links HC.

CC

ColdC,

I too look forward to the thoughts you intend to share here as a result of viewing the information in the links submitted by HC. While I commend Harry's enthusiasm, I very often struggle with the manner in which he presents information and the assumptions which are made. Perhaps you will do better generating interest in a topic so derserving of it.


Cheers.

[coldcreation]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

ColdC,

I too look forward to the thoughts you intend to share here as a result of viewing the information in the links submitted by HC. While I commend Harry's enthusiasm, I very often struggle with the manner in which he presents information and the assumptions which are made. Perhaps you will do better generating interest in a topic so derserving of it.

Cheers.

OK, I think, if we are to have advance on the subject, we should begin with this paper: Magnitude-Redshift Relation for SNe Ia, Time Dilation, and Plasma Redshift, and its reference number 7.

[InfiniteNow]

The paper speaks to the issue of a redshift intrinsic to the galaxy itself, even when corrected for coronal glare, and that using data from multiple studies it appears that cosmological time delation is false, hence, so is the contemporary BB model. What do you mean by "its reference number 7?"

I noticed also they look at type 1a supernovae (SN Ia) for study. Is this due to type 1b and c, and type 2 being brighter, hence it's more difficult to study/interpret the light curve? I haven't read too many papers on astrophysics, so it may take me a few minutes to pick up the lingo and background.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

Re:

Magnitude-Redshift Relation for SNe Ia, Time Dilation, and
Plasma Redshift

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0602/0602500.pdf

As per the quote

4 Conclusions and discussions
The very best data by the supernova researchers are consistent with the magnitude-redshift relations
predicted by the plasma redshift. The data indicate that there is no time dilation; that is, the data
indicate that the contemporary big-bang hypothesis is false.
In Figs. 1, 2, and 3 it is assumed that each galaxy has an intrinsic redshift of about z = 0.000925,
which was derived independently from the density determination in the Galactic corona. [7] Fig. 1 to
3 are consistent with these intrinsic redshift estimates. Fig. 4 indicates that Eq. (1), which eliminates
the time dilation from the magnitude determination, is a good approximation.
The 10 high-redshift supernovae with excessive deviation from the theoretical curve are listed
in Table 2. These 10 supernovae are all at high Galactic latitudes, 9 have positive and 1 negative
deviations. This suggests that a large positive deviation is due to an underestimate of the absorption
in the neutral gas of host galaxy. Fig. 2 shows that when we exclude these supernovae, both the
low and high-redshift supernovae are close to the theoretical curve for plasma redshift. The Hubble
constant derived from the best fit to the remaining 107 supernovae is H0 = 63.2 kms−1Mpc−1.
The overall standard deviation in the magnitude m−M of a single SNIa is only  = 0.14.
Using exact calculations, plasma redshift follows from conventional axioms of physics. [7] From
H0 = 63.2, we derive an average electron density of (Ne)av = H0/(3.076 · 105) = 2.05 · 10−4 cm−3 in
intergalactic space (see Eq. (49) in [7]). The energy loss of photons in the plasma redshift is absorbed
in the plasma. The corresponding heating leads to an average plasma temperature of about 3 million
K in intergalactic space. [7] These densities and temperatures of the intergalactic plasma explain
the isotropic CMB and the X-ray background, as shown in sections 5.10 and 5.11 in reference [7].
The plasma redshift cosmology thus gives a coherent prediction of the observations.

More evidence for galactic "shells" or "something else"
More evidence for galactic "shells" or "something else"

Measurements of periodic red-shift bunching appeared in the literature at least as far back as 1977 in the work of W.G. Tifft. The implications of this phenomenon are apparently too terrible to contemplate, for astrophysicists have not taken up the challenge. They may be forced to take the phenomenon more seriously, because two new reports of redshift bunching have surfaced.

First, B. Guthrie and W, Napier, at Edinburgh's Royal Observatory, have checked Tifft's "bunching" claim using accurately known red shifts of some nearby galaxies. They found a periodicity of 37.5 kilometers/second -- no matter in which direction the galaxies lay.

(Gribbin, John; "'Bunched' Red Shifts Question Cosmology," New Scientist, p. 10, December 21/28, 1991.) The work of Guthrie and Napier is elaborated upon in the next item.

Sec ond, B. Koo and R. Krone, at the University of Chicago, using optical red-shift measurements, discovered that, in one direction at least, "the clusters of galaxies, each containing hundreds of millions of stars, seemed to be concentrated in evenly spaced layers."

(Browne, Malcolm W.; "In Chile, GalaxyWatching Robot Seeks Measure of Universe," New York Times, December 17, 1991. Cr. P. Gunkel.)

Comment. Explanations for the unexpected bunching vary and are highly controversial:


There are systematic defects in the radiotelescopes and/or the observational techniques. But, as just reported by Koo and Krone, the phenomenon is also seen with optical instruments.

The red shifts are not entirely due to the Doppler Effect and the recessional velocities of galaxies. If this is so, the dimensions and age of the universe would have to be revised.

The red-shift bunching occurs because some galaxies are arranged in shells surrounding the earth. To some, this would be philosophically disastrous, because it would place humanity in a favored spot in the cosmos.

My question, is

Why has the Big Bang remained as the standard model without strong foundations?

Noramally a building with weak foundations falls. Unless it is propped up.

So what is propping up the Big Bang Theory?
and

Why the propping?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Harry Costas

Why has the Big Bang remained as the standard model without strong foundations?

Noramally a building with weak foundations falls. Unless it is propped up.

So what is propping up the Big Bang Theory?

This is pure speculation, Harry, please bear that in mind, but I suggest the issue is two-fold. 1) Support for counter positions, while slowly showing signs of increase, are lacking in enough magnitude and consistency to change perspectives of those who have seen BBT as the best available theory for years, and 2) BBT explains a whole host of other phenomena which all, thus far, proposed counter theories cannot.

In other words, the indications that the theory is broke are too weak to stir the general researcher to fix it.

[Harry Costas]

Hello Infinitenow
Thank you

You said

This is pure speculation, Harry, please bear that in mind, but I suggest the issue is two-fold. 1) Support for counter positions, while slowly showing signs of increase, are lacking in enough magnitude and consistency to change perspectives of those who have seen BBT as the best available theory for years, and 2) BBT explains a whole host of other phenomena which all, thus far, proposed counter theories cannot.

I do not agree.

The BBT has failed in every aspect.

Better still why even use a model.

Work off obseravtions and scientific "what ever".
How stars form
How novas form
How supernovas form
and so on
Work out the parts and put them together into a model that works.