The Electric Universe

[This paper is primarily for Christians and people who are honest in their hearts.]

For years, Cosmologists have been beating into our heads about the Big Bang.  The Big Bang is a theory of the origin of our universe, that states that all the universe was created with a single event that starts with a single singularity (or neutron) that exploded and filled nothing with a lot of somethings.

The theory is stated as elegant because it "remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question." -- Georges Lemaître  


Proponents of the Big Bang states that something must have happened because the galaxies and stars are flying away from us.  However, there are a couple of things wrong with the Big Bang Theory.

1. It depends on Gravity, which is little understood.  It's described in an equation:

But as to actually what it is, Gravity is not described.   Newton never did proceed to explain what it is, only what Gravity does in terms of Force and Inertia.  Also, Einstein replaced Newton's equations of Gravity with the General Theory of Relativity -- which makes Gravity's action on us abstract and not tangible.

2.  The Big Bang now depends on exotic matter, exotic energy, and exotic forces in order to be true.  However, there are problems with this.  Exotic matter -- this Dark Matter -- has never been directly observed.  It doesn't interact with light, it doesn't reflect light, and light passes through it.  Other exotic matter include Neutronium -- the material neutron stars are said to be made of, and Black Holes.  Black Holes, something so dense that not even light can escape -- needs no explanation as to what they do.  And Neutronium is matter composed primarily of neutrons all densely packed together in one place.  But in nuclear chemistry it's been observed that Neutrons repel each other and because of this, it is impossible to tightly pack them together.

The problem with Black Holes is that they haven't been directly or indirectly observed in any capacity.  A Black Hole should show up on photographic plates bending light around it while sucking more light and matter around them inside.  The problem with this that there should be white holes -- miniature big bangs that eject matter and light.  These also have not been observed. 

Dark Energy -- what physicists call the Zero Point Energy -- isn't Dark at all.  Zero Point Energy is energy detected at the zero point -- or absolute zero.  Many physicists were perplexed by the existence of zero point energy in their calculations, because at absolute zero a gas is absolutely at rest.

The problem is that Zero Point Energy isn't Dark Energy because Zero Point Energy can be detected on photographic film.  Doctor Wilhelm Riche was the first to detect Zero Point Energy and how it interacted with living organisms.  He called it the Orgone Energy, and have even built devices that take advantage of the Orgone Energy.  He created numerous devices that can detect orgone energy in living beings or fruits and vegetables.  He created devices that can make people well, and other devices that use Orgone Energy on grander scales -- but never for power generation.

However, Orgone Energy is the blue haze that can be seen in certain photographs.  Certainly of the Earth and galaxies -- in which it can be seen as a halo around the Earth and the galaxies.  But this blue haze of energy has also been photographed on Earth -- around forests and even human beings.  Especially those walking on the Moon.  There is no dark energy because what they are calling Dark Energy has certainly been photographed and can be seen by everyone.

Astrophysicists describe dark energy as fueling the expansion of our Universe.  But there is no proof that this is the case.  In every case, dark energy seems more of an attraction agent than a repulsion agent.

Dark Forces -- Dark Forces is especially problematic to the theory.  Scientists say that cosmic dark matter and cosmic dark energy are one and the same -- the dark force.  They use this to explain why we can't detect dark matter or dark energy (which we can detect on photographic film).  One scientist calls the dark force -- dark fluid.  Again, another abstraction.  According to this theory, dark fluid is like the atmosphere.  But it can't be detected or felt, maintaining a vacuum.

It is because of these abstractions that the Dark Energy theory is being used to prop up the theory that gravity controls everything in the universe.  However, gravity is certainly weak and it is certainly variable.  The gravitational Constant isn't constant, and this fact has been observed on Earth with experiments.

3. The Big Bang depends on the Book of Genesis, chapter 1, verses 1-4.  What is ironic that the theory, which is said that it doesn't depend on an Intelligent Creator or Surpreme Intelligence directing creation, depends on the Book of Genesis.  Genesis is a book of history written by Moses that contains an account of the Creation -- both in a literal sense and in an allegorical sense.  However, these few verses are applied to the entire universe and was pushed by a Jesuit priest.

So, the Big Bang theory depends on:
Gravity -- which is real.
Exotic matter, energy, and force -- which isn't real.
The Book of Genesis -- which is inspired writings by Moses translated into English, German, and French -- the three languages of Science.


So the conclusion is that the Big Bang Theory is not science at all, but pseudo-science based on pure speculation around the theory of gravity and a book most learned men discount as having any authority over them what so ever.  Although the theory has a lot to offer Christians and Creationists, most Christians and Creationists really do reject this theory as plausible.

The Electric Universe

This theory, which is as old as the Big Bang, has been getting a lot of attention lately.  Unlike the Big Bang theory, which is based on pseudo-scientific mathematics, computer models, built around gravity, and depends on the Inspired Word while denying the power of the Inspired Word -- is a theory based on Observation: both Ancient and Modern.  It is also supported by experiments.  While it is hard to perform experiments in Astronomy, it is not hard to perform experiments on electricity, electromagnetism, and plasma.

Electromagnetism is several more times more powerful than Gravity.  And it has been recently discovered that Plasma makes up most of the observable universe.  Plasma makes up Galaxies, Quasars, suns, nebulae, nebulous formations seen in space, and the solar winds that fill the Interstellar Medium.

Plus, space isn't electrically neutral, neither are the planets in our Solar System.  All of the planets are electrically charged, and try to reach electric equilibrium with the solar environment by creating lightning and auroras.  

The theory never supposes that there is a beginning to the Universe, or an End to the Universe; like the Big Bang does.  The theory works from observed phenomena and is supported by experiments that recreate certain phenomena.  Planetary rings, auroras, lightning, plasma formations; all have been created in the laboratory using plasma equipment.

Successful predictions have been made by Australian Physicist Wallace Thornhill on how comets act in our Solar System when interacted by spacecraft from space.  Gravity is described as the ashes of electrical discharge and electrical systems by the theory, and the theory predicts the actions of certain planets in the Solar system -- such as Saturn's mega lightning, planetary auroras, and Io's plasma ejections as it tries to reach equilibrium in Jupiter's environment.

Does the theory use Genesis as a basis?  No, it does not.  Does the theory presuppose the actions of a Creator?  The theory doesn't need a Creator to work, because it doesn't make the assumption of a creation or destruction.  It just works from observed data and experiments.  Does the theory need an Intelligent Designer, or a Supreme Being?  No, the theory does not need an Intelligent Designer or a Supreme Being because it describes only the observable, and objective.   The Electric Universe has proponents such as Benjamin Franklin, Anthony Peratt, Dr. Donald Scott, Halton Arp, Nikola Tesla, and Hannes Alfven. 

From a theological standpoint, the theory has a lot to offer Atheists and Evolutionists since it does not make the assumption that a Creator exists.  In fact, it cannot, since the presence of a Creator or an Intelligent Designer cannot be detected by this theory.  The theory doesn't explain anything of supernatural terms -- just the actions of plasma and electromagnetism in the Universe.  The theory has nothing to offer to the Creationist or to Christians.   However, the theory has been accessed by more Christians and Creation science blogs than the other theory, which is propped up by a failing priesthood of aging Atheists and those that believe in Cosmic Evolution according to the Big Bang.

The question begs, why?  Perhaps this is the reason.  The theory has been tested with experiments and observations.  The theory isn't all that beautiful, in fact it takes into account Catastrophic beliefs and explains those.  It doesn't have any complex mathematics to understand.  It just simply attempts to explain the action of plasma and electro-magnetism in the Universe.  Which is the better theory for you to believe?

-------------------------------------

Works Cited

Big Bang Theory
Schirber, Michael. "New cosmic theory unites dark forces - Technology & science - Space - Space.com - msnbc.com." msnbc.com - Breaking news, science and tech news, world news, US news, local news- msnbc.com. Version 1.0. msnbc.com, 11 Feb. 2008. Web. 9 June 2011. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23112569/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/new-cosmic-theory-unites-dark-forces/>.


P. van der Marel, STScI, Roeland, and David T. Schaller. "HubbleSite: Black Holes: Gravity's Relentless Pull." HubbleSite - Out of the ordinary...out of this world.. Version 1.0. Hubble Site, n.d. Web. 9 June 2011. <http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/>.

SpaceRip. " YouTube - ‪The Largest Black Holes in the Universe‬‏ ." YouTube . Version 1.0. SpaceRip, 28 Sept. 2009. Web. 9 June 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW7BvabYnn8>. 


quantomQ. " YouTube - ‪Q- What is The Dark Matter & Dark Energy ." YouTube. Version 1.0. QuantomQ, 27 Feb. 2010. Web. 9 June 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpJk-vQajh8&feature=related>.

Electric Universe Theory
Souperdragon42. "Plasma Cosmology .net." Plasma Cosmology .net. Version 1.0. Souperdragon42, 6 Sept. 2007. Web. 9 June 2011. <http://www.plasmacosmology.net>.

J. Lerner, Eric. "No Big Bang" No Big Bang : Contents. Version 1.0. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 June 2011. <http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org>.

Thornhill, Wallace. "The Electric Universe." The Electric Universe. Version 1.0. Me, Myself, and I, n.d. Web. 9 June 2011. <http://www.holoscience.com>.

Thunderbolts home." Thunderbolts home. Thunderbolts Team, n.d. Web. 9 June 2011. <http://www.thunderbolts.info>.

Zero Point Energy
GREENPOWERSCIENCE. " YouTube - ‪Wilhelm Reich and the Orgone Energy‬‏ ." YouTube. Version 1.0. Natural Energy Works, 15 May 2009. Web. 9 June 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPV-JExUPns>.  

Dark Forces

I put up Nina Paley's "Drinking Problem" with Meme and Eustace for a simple reason.  You, mainstream astronomers, have a drinking problem.  You won't simply take no for an answer from Nature and now think up crazy ideas that you push to us, the general public.

You simply have the brass to dictate to Nature how she ought to act and be:



Really, nature doesn't look the way you want Nature to look.  In all simplicity, It looks at your wonderfully constructed equations and simply doesn't follow them.  Nature doesn't manifest Dark Energy, Dark Matter, or Dark Forces. 

Dark Matter.

Well, you had something there with Dark Matter until you say it isn't made up of atoms.  So, you're looking for neutrinos, which are made up of Dark Matter but doesn't have mass.  Okay . . .

Dark Energy.

Energy is neither dark nor light, it simply is energy.  Some of it is invisible, some of it is very visible.  But it's the same, Energy.  Matter is spent Energy, but it can be converted back into unspent Energy.  Energy, whether it is intelligent or not, is simply energy.  You can lull your sheep into believing in Dark Energy, but the next thing really shows you are off your rocker.

Dark Forces.

You are not only thumbing Nature's nose, but your taking Sir Issac Newton's work on Physics and flushing it down the toilet with dark forces.  To create your perfect universe, you have divided everything up into a dichotomy.   Matter vs. Dark Matter, Energy vs. Dark Energy, Force vs. Dark Force.  This is so medievalistic it reminds me of Saint Cyril when he vivisected Hypatia on a Christian altar.  Our Universe still works in some absolutes --> 1+1 will always be 2.  An object at rest will stay at rest until a force acts upon it.

You are creating an ideology and calling it science.   You are drunk with theories and mathematics you don't realize that you are creating a religion.  You have your creation myths, your saints, your god, and your theology.  You have perverted science; and are slowly transforming it from the quest for truth about the world around us into a pseudo-science.  The young must be indoctrinated into your ideology and you use Mathematics to cow everyone else into believing you.

You deserve the label "astrologer" and all the respect due to the term.  You, who won't take no for an answer to your big bang.  You, who have prevented real scientists from getting telescope time, or preventing their work to the public.  You are drunk with fame and T.V. time.  You are so drunk with your own knowledge and supposed wisdom that you have become blind.

Your big bang theory is built like a house of cards.  You treat us like sheep and have deluded us into believing you.  You prevented Halton Arp from publishing his materials, and you prevent other scientists from being seen and heard.  Well, you astrologers, your theory's time is limited.  You astrologers who will not take "no" for an answer to the Big Bang Theory and make up all of these fantastic constructs are drunk with yourselves.  You're like Meme in this strip:






Really, guys, get a clue.  You are so in love with your fantasy that you will not allow reality to have its say.

Except on the Internet.
 

The Problem with the Big Bang Theory

The Big Bang Theory is becoming more speculative every day.  Big Bang Supporters won't take no for an answer to their theory.  They are becoming more and more religious everyday when something is presented to them that says otherwise.  Lately, it has become a case where Man argues with God as to what the Universe should be.  Or even better, Man dictates to God how the Universe should be like.  However, God hasn't gotten the message as Nature, in all it's Majesty, cannot appreciate the perfect beauty of our equations.

Halton Arp has been excommunicated and banished to Germany by the American scientific community.  Arp had discovered some irregularities with quasars.  They had high redshifts, which would mean that they are further away from the Earth.  However, Arp discovered that the Quasars are actually connected to the galaxy they were around, and that ejection had taken place.  He even said that creation takes place in the center of galaxies.  This was a stunning blow to the Big Bang Theory, since it flied in the face of Expansion of the universe.  As a result, the scientists involved wouldn't accept such thoughts.  In fact, one of them said that the paper exceeds his imagination.  A dangerous phrase to say, since humans are supposed to have unlimited imaginations.  After all, take a look at game players -- they have very active imaginations.

Also, Wallace Thornhill and David Talbott are presenting a theory of the Universe that includes Electromagnetism as the dominate force.  They are presenting their findings in a series of videos and books published on Youtube and through Mikamar Publishing.  They contend that the strange symbols in our sky are compared to manifestations of plasma and electric discharge in our ancient skies.  The body of their work is called "Thunderbolts of the Gods", the "Electric Universe", and "Symbols of an Alien Sky."

The data they present is based on laboratory experiments and not on esoteric theory.  While Arp's data is presented on pure observation.  So, what is the layman to do?  Not being trained as a scientist, he's stuck between two opinions.  What should he do?  Research the questions as best he can to test the conclusions of both parties to see if the Universe acts more one way than the other.  That's all the layman can do.

The problem with the Big Bang is simple.  It's a theory that has holes in it.  Exotic matter (Black Holes, Neutron Stars, Dark Matter) and exotic energy (Dark Energy) are suppositions that are used to hold up the theory.  Even though computer models are used to prove the theory, that's all they are are computer models.  They aren't evidence on how things should be -- they just present a model of what you think is.

For me, the Big Bang Theory is in question.  I don't think it is something someone with any intelligence should persue and uphold -- especially with these new observations and experiments show. I believe that as more evidence about the Universe shows up, the Big Bang Theory will be abandoned for a "Steady State theory" or a "Dynamic Steady State" theory.

God only knows what the final outcome will be.  But at some time, Man will stop dictating to God how the creation of the Universe and how it works aught to be.