There is something very troubling happening in cosmology today: Of those people in our modern society who believe in the power of science to separate fact from fiction, there exists at the core of their beliefs a failure to seek out science-based reasons to disbelieve our most popular theories.
Extravagant programs involving supercomputer simulations are routinely broadcasted on the subject of cosmology. Constructs like dark matter and dark energy are oftentimes described in these programs as though they have already been observed and understood. Scientists detail the history of the universe in terms of microseconds after the universe’s origin, and few think to question it. A rational person might be forgiven for investigating further.
What is noticeably missing from all of this activity is a desire to seek and hear out critics. And it’s probably the case that most people simply assume that there are no critics, for if there were, then wouldn’t science journalists write about them, in the interest of keeping our scientific theories cleansed of our own inherent biases?
The critics are out there, and their arguments have been published in some of the most esteemed journals man has ever created …
Wal Thornhill, theorist who successfully predicted most of the results of the Deep Impact mission based upon an electrical plasma cosmology
Gerrit Verschuur, radio astronomer – who struggles to be heard that the “clouds” of matter between the stars are enigmatically filamentary
Anthony Peratt, government researcher with a focus on plasma physics, whom we trust to watch over our nuclear stockpile, but is nevertheless dismissed by astrophysicists and cosmologists, and even actively interfered with in his attempts to simulate plasma-based cosmology
Hannes Alfven, who was granted the Nobel prize for his creation of magnetohydrodynamics, but was nevertheless ignored when he used the occasion of his acceptance speech to critique the way in which astrophysicists were applying it. Alfven predicted that these problems would inevitably lead to a “crisis in cosmology”.
The implications of a crisis in cosmology could not be more serious, for the belief that we live on a planet which is gravely warming due to human activities is based, in part, upon the worldview that we live in an electrically disconnected universe. But, that’s not all: If the universe is electrically connected, then it naturally follows that this connection incites changes on a timescale which will surely surprise modern cosmologists and astrophysicists. The consequences of ignoring this controversy are too enormous to simply dismiss.
And yet, where cosmic threads are commonly observed connecting planets with stars, stars with other stars, galaxies with galaxies, and even threads of galaxies, we nevertheless teach students of astrophysics and cosmology that these threads cannot possibly be electrical transfers. We teach this worldview even as we realize that there are no physical wires moving currents within novelty plasma globes …
Where magnetic fields are observed to pervade most of the visible universe, we teach students to assume that they originated with the universe itself or result from dynamos hidden from any ability to observe them (both non-falsifiable claims) – and we do so even as electrical engineers just down the hallway create devices and computers which absolutely demand that magnetic fields result from electrical currents. We teach this worldview with an unassailable confidence, and even as these models can only identify around 5% of the universe’s matter and energy necessary for these models to work. Those who disagree, the story goes, simply don’t understand the theory.
There is a growing urgency in science today that we face the problems of our scientific theories with courage. It’s time to stop pretending that there are no critics. It’s time for science journalists to start learning about the problems with our theories in cosmology and astrophysics, and to develop the courage to actually run stories on these failures.
A Summary from LPPhysics, Inc.
The new evidence on surface brightness is by no means the only recent research that contradicts the Big Bang theory. Despite the continuing popularity of the theory, essentially every prediction of the theory has been increasingly contradicted by better and better data
Key contradicted predictions:
Prediction: Any superhot explosion throughout the universe, like the Big Bang, would have generated a certain small amount of the light element lithium.
Evidence: Yet as astronomers have observed older and older stars, the amount of lithium observed has gotten less and less, and, in the oldest stars is less than one tenth of the predicted level. This, however, accords with non-Big-Bang predictions that explain the production of light elementsby stars and cosmic rays within the galaxies themselves.
2) Dark Matter
Prediction: The Big Bang theory requires the existence of dark matter—mysterious particles that have never been observed in the laboratory, despite huge experiments to find them.
Evidence: Multiple lines of evidence, especially observations of the motions of galaxies, show that this dark matter does not exist.
3) Too Large Structures
Prediction: In the Big Bang theory, the universe is supposed to start off completely smooth and homogenous.
Evidence: But as telescopes have peered farther into space, huger and huger structures of galaxies have been discovered, which are too large to have been formed in the time since the Big Bang.
4) Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) Asymmetries
Prediction: The inflation that was supposed to have occurred during the Big Bang should have smoothed out any large-scale asymmetries in the universe. The CBR should show be perfectly symmetrical.
Evidence: The CBR in fact shows strong evidence of asymmetries from one side of the sky to the other that, although small, could not have been produced by the ultra-symmetric “inflation” that hypothetically occurred in the Big Bang.
The response of most cosmologists to this growing body of evidence has, unfortunately, not been to decide the Big Bang theory has been falsified, but to add new “parameters” and hypotheses, like dark energy. The theory is now far more complex and speculative than the Ptolemaic epicycles that were destroyed by the Scientific Revolution. Each contradiction with observation is taken as a mere “anomaly” that does not undermine the theory as a whole. Strong peer pressure is applied against many of those who question the theory.
“It’s as if researchers are saying ‘I can see the Emperor’s elbow through his New Clothes’, ‘I can see the Emperor’s knee though his New Clothes’ and so on, “ says Lerner. “It is time to say: ‘The Emperor is not wearing any clothes’. This theory has no correct predictions.”
To replace the Big Bang, other researchers have elaborated, in peer-reviewed publications, alternative explanations of the generation of light elements and of the energy in the CBR by ordinary stars, and of the development of large-scale structures through the interaction of gravity and electromagnetic processes. “No one would claim that all the problems in cosmology have been resolved, “agrees Lerner,” but the evidence is consistent with an evolving, but non-expanding universe, which had no beginning in time and no Big Bang.”
More detailed descriptions of the evidence against the Big Bang theory
See the article for additional details on each of these four points.