Deflating the Theory of Cosmic Inflation | Space News

Deflating the Theory of Cosmic Inflation | Space News


Welcome to Space News from
the Electric Universe, brought to you by The
Thunderbolts Project™ at Thunderbolts.info Since the early 20th century the
story of our universe’s origins has been a shifting an
incredibly strange tale. Today it’s generally accepted
that the person who originated the now widely held
Big Bang Theory was a Belgian priest
named George Lemaitre who proposed, in the 1920s, that the Universe’s primordial
creation began with a single atom. Around 1980, the physicist Alan Guth
developed the idea of cosmic inflation or the notion that physical space
experienced an exponential expansion immediately after the Big Bang. On this series, we have reported on
countless discoveries that in effect falsify the foundations
of the Big Bang Theory. Nevertheless, it remains the dominant
view in 21st century cosmology. In this episode, Thunderbolts Picture Of
the Day Managing Editor, Stephen Smith, offers his analysis of the current
state of Big Bang cosmology and specifically the evidence for
and against cosmic inflation. Cosmology today is dominated
by the Big Bang Theory. The theory’s major premise is
that there was once a void containing no matter,
no space and no time. For some unknown reason, a burst of
energy from another realm of existence replaced the void with
the present universe. The Big Bang Theory was developed
because the astronomer Edwin Hubble believed that he observed remote
galaxies receding from the Milky Way. The most surprising thing
was not recession itself but the high velocities
associated with his measurements. According to his
calculations, some galaxies were traveling away from his observatory
at thousands of kilometers per second. Hubble arrived at his conclusion because of what was later called
the redshift of light frequencies. Adopting the Doppler effect to
the spectra of various galaxies, Hubble thought that the change in location
of particular elemental signatures, called Fraunhofer lines, indicated
that light waves were shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
by a recessional velocity. Fraunhofer lines are supposed to occur
at specific frequencies in the spectrum by whatever element
is absorbing light. If they are in a
different location then they have been Doppler-shifted
because of the element’s acceleration. This forms the backbone of galactic
scaled distance calculations along with the recession
that galaxies display. Using this system of redshift, some
galaxies are thought to be moving at an unbelievable 90%
of the speed of light. All that we see and experience is supposed
to have been born in the Big Bang explosion so the original inertia, imparted to
the universe, came from that event. Since distances and relational velocities
are correlated with a time scale, something like a galaxy or a quasi-stellar
object, that is 10 billion light years away, is also thought to be as it
was 10 billion years ago. Astronomers think that they see ancient light
traveling through space for 10 billion years. The current estimate for the age of
the universe is 13.7 billion years and, as mentioned,
distance and time are thought to be related to
each other because of redshift. So when we look out
at the universe, distance provides information
that determines how old it is. In other words, the diameter
of the observable universe should be approximately
27.4 billion light-years. However, there’s a problem
associated with that figure. According to astrophysicists,
the universe is thought to be 156 billion light-years in
diameter and not 27.4 billion. What explains that anomaly? The answer is supposed to be
something called inflation. Astrophysicists in the past
were shocked when observations seemed to show more complexity in the
early universe than should exist. As the principle of
inflation states though, it’s not merely the
acceleration from the Big Bang that is affecting the
spectra of remote galaxies but it’s that the space in which
they are embedded is expanding. If it requires X amount of time for a galaxy
to form and the universe is Y years old, then a galaxy should not exist at
time distances less than Y minus X. When such galaxies were seen,
some other explanation had to be added to the Big
Bang to account for them. So, objects that appear to be
redshifted to extreme distances may not be as old as
their spectra suggests. They’re moving along with
the expansion of space. As inflationary theory proposes, they’re not as old as they appear to be
because they’re simply farther away. That dichotomy seems to demand that
the early universe was expanding faster than the speed of light since its size
is more than 11 times greater than its age. Edwin Hubble’s observations
of galactic distances versus speed of recession
led to another quandary. Galaxies that are
far enough away move so fast that they must
exceed the speed of light. That’s known as the universal
horizon or the Hubble radius. It’s a point beyond which
instruments can never see because light from over that horizon can never
catch up to the expansion velocity of space. The theory of special relativity doesn’t allow
any object to reach the speed of light, let alone exceed it, so how do space
scientists deal with that dilemma? They do so by ignoring the
restrictions of special relativity and resorting instead
to general relativity where such restrictions
don’t exist. Since no information can be transmitted
from beyond the Hubble radius, no violation of
relativity occurs. Just how did these twists
and turns in ideas, as well as the warping of
time and space, come about? They are a direct result of the assumption
that redshift correlates with distance. Modern cosmological systems are built,
without exception, on that assumption. But what if Hubble’s
original premise was flawed? What if redshift is
really a red herring? Where can we turn
for an explanation? Well, we can look at the
work of Halton Arp, an astronomer whose reputation was at
least the equal of Edwin Hubble’s. In the 1960s astronomers discovered
quasi-stellar objects, better known as quasars. They have large red shifts
implying that they’re located near the farthest edge of
the observable universe. Quasars are referred to as quasi-stellar
because they’re relatively small, little more than a lightyear in
diameter, yet they emit a lot of energy so they’re thought to be the most powerful
continuously radiant objects in the universe. The only other active
energy sources detectable at those vast distances
are gamma-ray bursters. However, GRBs last for minutes
whereas quasars shine continuously. They remain as bright as when
they were first discovered. Some astronomers found that many quasars
are associated with spiral galaxies and appear to be near the galaxy instead
of billions of light years distant. Based on other ideas, such as quasars’ anomalous apparent
brightness when compared to their redshifts, Hubble’s expanding universe
theory was called into question. Long before the quasar problem arose,
though, Hubble himself suggested that inflation might not have taken
place in the early universe. He thought that new observational
data was necessary in order to decide whether
it was definitive. In 1947 he was waiting for the new 200-inch
telescope at Mount Palomar to be built. So, in publications of the
Astronomical Society Of The Pacific, vol 59 number 349, he wrote, “It seems likely that redshift may
not be due to an expanding universe, and much of the speculations on the structure
of the universe may require re-examination… We may predict with
confidence that the 200-inch will tell us whether the redshifts must be attributed
as evidence of a rapidly expanding universe, or attributed to some new
principle of nature.” Unfortunately, nothing
definitive resulted from astronomers working
with the Hale telescope or the many space borne telescopes
that have been in launch since then. Instead, redshift and inflation are a
dogma among the astronomical community and ever more arcane mathematical
excursions have been added to the mix. Although many observations
contradict the consensus view, and have been doing so
for 50 years or more, those data are ignored
or marginalized. High redshift quasars,
as previously mentioned, are found in axial alignment with galaxies
that possess substantially lower redshift. They’re also sometimes connected
to lower redshift galaxies by bridges of luminous material. Halton Arp was the lone voice
among a crowd of scientists when he started publishing papers
that demonstrated that inflation or the Big Bang Theory
were not valid. As Hubble predicted, Arp’s research
using the 200-inch Hale telescope demonstrated “some new
principle of nature.” One of Arp’s more interesting
images was NGC 4319 and its companion
quasar Markarian 205. Arp called attention to the fact
that the lower redshift galaxy is physically connected to
the higher redshift quasar. A filament between the two objects
violates the measured distances because no such connection
should be possible. After all, NGC 4319 is said to be about
600 million light-years from Earth while Markarian 205 as around
a billion light-years away. If those objects are
physically connected, they must be near each other
and at the same distance. Their redshifts have to be some, from some
other factor not related to distance, there must be something
intrinsic to their makeup. Arp assembled a catalog of
discordant redshift association that describes anomalous
structures or physical links among objects with radically
different redshifts. Some of the observations
show quasar pairs being ejected in opposite
directions from active galaxies. This led to the so-called ejection
model of galaxy formation. In brief, high-redshift quasars around galaxies
are the daughters of the mature galaxy. Their various red shifts do not
indicate distance but age. Arp speculated that redshift
measurements of quasars is not composed of a
velocity value alone but also depends on the
aforementioned intrinsic redshift. Intrinsic redshift is
a property of matter, like mass or charge, and
can change over time. According to his theory, when quasars
are ejected from a parent galaxy they possess a very high intrinsic
redshift Z=2 or greater. As the quasars move away from their
origin within a galactic nucleus, the redshift properties begin to decrease
until they reach somewhere near Z=0.3 At that point the quasar
resembles a small galaxy. The inertial moment of ejection
is eventually overcome and the mass of the quasar increases
while the speed of ejection decreases until it may become
a companion galaxy. That is how galaxies form
and age, according to Arp, evolving from highly redshifted
quasars to small irregular galaxies and then into larger
barred spirals. There are several other
examples of fast-moving quasars in front of slower moving galaxies, or
connected to them with luminous filaments. NGC 7603 is a distorted spiral
galaxy with a single arm joined by that arm to a smaller
companion with a much higher redshift, and also within the bright material
of the arm are two other objects, each with redshifts different
from the galaxy pair. There’s nothing conclusive in the mainstream
scientific journals about Arp’s data. His revelations concerning
problems with consensus dogma were considered too intolerable
so he was censured by his peers. However, the evidence he gathered and
promoted ought to make us stop and think. Is the Big Bang dead? How big and how old
is the universe if redshift readings are not
reliable indicators of distance? This discussion could almost be
completed with one statement: a theory built on questionable assumptions
should never be the basis for new theories. Astronomers think they found proof
for the inflationary Big Bang Theory in observations of the so called
Cosmic Microwave Background. The CMB is said to be the remnant signal
leftover from the beginning of the universe. In the early 1960s, Arno
Penzias and Robert Wilson began to use the Holmdel satellite
antenna as a research tool. The antenna was originally
built to detect signals bounced off the earliest satellite
communication system, known as Echo. The Echo satellite was an aluminized
Mylar balloon, 30 metres in diameter. Radio signals beamed from Earth
were reflected by the satellite allowing transcontinental wave
broadcast for the first time without relying on what was quickly becoming
a saturated network of transoceanic cables. Penzias’s and Wilson’s original
plan was to use the horn to amplify radio signals from the Milky Way
as well as from the space between galaxies. They were attempting to create some
of the first radio maps of deep space and they got their chance after the Telstar
satellite launch made Echo obsolete. They soon discovered the antenna
was picking up a lot of noise, so much so it was making it difficult for
them to carry on with their projects. That story is probably familiar
to a lot of people by now. They checked the antenna by
pointing it at New York City to see [if there was] if that was
the source of the interference. Then they looked to see if it was some
kind of radiation from the galaxy or perhaps from an
above-ground nuclear test or maybe it was distortion from a
nest of pigeons living in the horn. After a full year of trying
to locate the source and finding that it was
uniform across the sky, they concluded that it had to be
coming from somewhere so distant that it was fundamental to the overall
structure of the universe itself. In 1964, Dr. Robert Dicke
of Princeton University, building on George Gamow’s 1948 theory
about the creation of heavy elements in what is now known
as the Big Bang, proposed that there ought to
be a 3 Kelvin glow left behind by the original creatio
ex nihilo event. However, before they could
complete their own radio antenna, Penzias and Wilson announced their
findings earning them the Nobel Prize. Robert Dicke remained heavily involved with
the Big Bang Theory until his death in 1997. Dr. Alan Guth attended a lecture
by Dicke in which he, Dicke, explained the problems with the
Big Bang Theory at that time. One of those problems involve the
question of density in the universe. If the universe contains insufficient
mass, it will continue to expand until all the stars go out and
all the matter loses its motion. This idea was
called, Heat Death. If there’s a greater density then the
universe will draw back in on itself due to the force of gravity into
what is called the Big Crunch. Guth decided to tackle the problem
since many other considerations, too numerous for detailed
explanation here, began to emerge. One important discussion centered on
why the universe appears so uniform. It looks pretty much the same, no
matter where instruments are pointed. His solution for the observed
homogeneity of the universe in general, and of the CMB in particular,
was a period of inflation. In August 1980 he published
The Inflationary Universe, a possible solution to the
horizon and flatness problems. Today, inflation is one of the
foundational principles in Big Bang theory because it “solves” the
homogeneity problem. Suffice to say, space is not a
substance any more than time is. Space cannot warp or bend
or ripple or expand. Space is defined as “The unlimited or incalculably
great three-dimensional realm or expanse in which all material objects are
located and in which all events occur.” It’s a domain without substance
since it’s where substance exists. It is not that substance,
therefore it has no existence except as a method for defining the
existence and position of things. To infer that space and time are a fabric,
in which gravity can wave, is ludicrous. It’s tantamount to saying that space exists in
and of itself and is capable of alteration. In conclusion to this brief discussion it appears
that science is building castles in the air. Eventually they’re
all doomed to fall. In the Electric Universe conclusions are never
based on the reification of abstractions. Instead, observations point to the
electrical nature of the cosmos without the need for an endless
series of ad hoc concepts designed to prop up
sagging theories. For continuous updates on Space
News from the Electric Universe stay tuned to Thunderbolts.info

96 thoughts on “Deflating the Theory of Cosmic Inflation | Space News

  1. i always thought that the Big Bang is a stalemate with Creationism …. so there must be another explanation and this must be it

  2. There are many things wrong with this video. As a theoretical physicist they're easy to spot. You're getting many things confused

  3. You should be able to cite peer reviewed papers more recent than 1947 if your point is valid. Otherwise the entire scientific community is wrong and you're right

  4. So the "Big Bang Theory" is NOT absolute? What about the "Theory of Evolution"? Carl Sagan will be rolling over in his grave. Only a GOD could make humans so stupid.

  5. The sheer number of people screaming "THIS IS RUBBISH" and fail to use evidence to explain the problems the Thunderbolts project points out is embarrassing. Science isn't a religion, people, stop assuming everything you know about things millions of lightyears away is correct. Take the information Thunderbolts presents find out for yourself whether their findings are more or less solid than the current scientific models. Or would you rather wait for another burst of headlines in the news reading "IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! SCIENTISTS BAFFLED!" to realize current models clearly aren't working when faced with real evidence?

  6. This is science and religion coming together. Absolute truth meets absolute connection absolute meaning for life. Or St least more truth than we once knew…. Consciousness expanding is amazing.

  7. Excellent presentation. It's sad that science today has forgotten about the scientific method and has to resort to mathematical fudge factors, such as dark matter, dark energy, super black holes and inflation to account for their calculations not working. Why bother with observation. When will the general public and media stop listening to the rubbish being presented?

  8. We have to find a way to pull power out of these filaments to use in our proton drive engines … No more needs for metric tons of fuel to get from place to place in our galaxy … /-:

  9. i don't know much about big bangs and expansion……..but we have a saying in the north of England…..and that is….You Don't Get Owt for Nowt…..which means you don't get anything for nothing………..anyway not surprised a priest came up with the big bang…..LET THERE BE LIGHT it's been done before

  10. The big bang theory has nothing to do with what came before it. Your poking holes in your own misrepresentation not the actual theory.

  11. Wonderful video, but your assertion that Halton Arp was the ~only~ astronomer/cosmologist to reject the "red shift as doppler shifted receding velocity" theory is incorrect. William G. Tifft of Steward Observatory literally wrote the book on it, "Red Shift", refuting this dogma. I met him at the Tucson / University of Arizona "Festival of Books" in 2015, and bought his book. He autographed it for me 🙂 He ~should~ have been inside speaking as other cosmologists were, but as absorbed as he was in his own work, Tifft was unaware of MIT cosmologist Alan Lightman, who was himself speaking inside, who himself writes books of gedanken experiments on the nature of the universe, but who himself is a red-shift-as-doppler-shift guy!! I would have loved to have seen a debate 😉 I blogged about it at the time – http://www.suzcorner.com/meeting-two-giants-in-cosmology/

  12. how would the red shift look, of objects that moved laterally (sideways, up and down) , and not to or from us? or have we not discovered any of those yet.

    also, those inflating balloons with the galaxies on it, are our own atmospheric refractive edge that expands, not the entire universe.

  13. OK, if space cannot be warped, then how do you explain the detection of gravitational waves? Or the experiments with gyroscopes in orbit (Gravity Probe B)?

  14. Maybe the reason everything is red-shifted is because we're rotating so rapidly not only around the sun, but our solar system in the milky way, and the milky way compared to other galaxies. Is it possible that an observer moving backwards fast enough could cause normal light to be red-shifted?

  15. Dear ThunderboltsProject, please note that we also only in recent years discovered that we have a strong foamy collection of EM fields (each tens to hundreds of AU wide) at the fringes of our solar system, called the heliosheath. Any strong enough magnetic field, known from experiments, can bend the paths of (alter momentum and direction) or even trap subatomic particles, including photons, protons, electrons and neutrons. This means that the heliosheath (and other undiscovered factors) has influenced ALL extrasolar observations. This would also mean that all our cosmological theories that are based on these observations would have to be adjusted or thrown away, including the theories around the curvature of spacetime and the cosmic inflation/stagnation/deflation.

    In essence, I don't hold on to current figures of the age, size and makeup of the universe, nor do I entertain any theory about the properties of stars other than theories based on observations of our own star, the Sun. For all we know, there could be a bubble of mini-stars at around 1000 AU and we're living in a star-bubble with nothing else outside of that sphere. Another theory could be that this heliosheath acts as a shattered mirror, reflecting our own solar system right back at us, each time with different properties because the bubbles themselves are all different and thus reflecting back the light and other particles in different ways.

    All of the current cosmological theories are based on observations from subatomic particles (in most cases, photons in B-V or near-IR and IR spectra) landing on sensors here on earth (or in rare cases, sensors on probes that are still not reaching the edge of our solar system). There is also plasma present in the heliosheath, and it is known that plasma has a focusing effect. In other words, all extrasolar observation has been subject to magnetic turbulence. No telescope has accounted for this. Given the very static nature (because of the sheer scale of the phenomenon) of the heliosheath, separate observations might not have yielded different results by which we could figure out the real data behind the observations, and any anomaly (or the collection of anomalies) because of the heliosheath might have been seen as 'exotic' phenomena needing different theories like: black hole theory, white hole theory, pulsars, etc. So, again, we could be looking at something completely different.

    Come to think of it, inflation models have this weird thing going on that things relatively far enough away are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Wouldn't this be impossible? Maybe the coming revelations about the heliosheath hold more promising models.

  16. Uniform Web Contraction Why the Universe Appears to be Expanding
    In this short draft I will explain a new idea which helps us understand why the universe appears to be expanding. I will use simple terminology and use of an analogy to help dismiss the idea of the big bang model, Cosmology has no big bang singularity and therefore do away with the inflation theory, this also may help to explain the cosmic microwave background radiation.
    In short I theorise that space appears to be expanding because the distances between galaxies are increasing, I theorise this is because all galaxies are 'shrinking' or a better word is fusing. Each galaxy is finding a 'stable position' to be in compared to the positions of other neighbouring galaxies. It is not space that is expanding, it is space that is being created, the motion of all galaxies is filling the space created. Galaxies are being pulled and pushed by their closest neighbouring galaxies mass, uniformly throughout the universe. This scenario is perfectly viable
    The Birth, Death and Before of Stars, Planets and 'Matter (fields)'
    Stars are being 'born' and 'dying' continuously in space, lets start by 'rewinding' this process in the only way which is possible, our imagination, by reversing the fusion process of all the 'matter' or fields in the universe, lets 'undo' the fusion process to unlock what happened before. Stars are created all the time in space. How many at any one moment is anyone's guess. I asked myself, how many exist right now? How many are exploding at this moment? These questions will never be answered correctly and I do not endeavour to address them here. What I am interested in is a thought experiment. Lets 'rewind' 'time', let us imagine that the processes involved in a galaxies 'lifetime' are in reverse, their atoms and molecules separate, the pressures in their centre decrease and therefore the 'matter' spreads out into space, space as we know it 'disappears'. As all the molecules and atoms reverse their fusion what happens to the space surrounding them? Does it 'fill'? If all the galaxies in the universe 'unbound' until there was not one atom fused with another, what would we be left with?
    Here my theory begins to take shape. If we were now (stupidly) to put an human (consciousness) observer at any point in the universe what would they see? Perhaps a complex plasma filament array? Would there even be any 'space' remaining. Could this early universe be devoid of space? If you can picture a universe with no space then we are at the heart of my idea of the beginnings of what we perceive as expansion. To help you visualise this imagine a kids ball pool, but infinite. The positioning of these balls is something I will come to in a future article.
    For now lets take a look at the big bang model and inflation theory. I would like to explain a simple analogy to help realise the misinterpretation of expansion, which is assumed that because all galaxies are moving away from each other, in the past, they must have all been together, in a small singularity. I don't think this is a correct analysis. It is not the only possibility.
    So, my friends and I walk onto a football pitch, carrying a big bag of footballs. I ask my friends to close there eyes. I place 10 footballs in a line representing atoms touching each other. I kick the first football placed, this force pushes the other balls and the last football moves away. I say "open your eyes", they do and observe the balls all moving away from me. I again ask them to close there eyes, repeat the placement of balls but this time I add a further 5 balls surrounding the 10th ball, I kick the 1st ball again. This kick again moves all the balls and the 9th and 10th balls hit and move these newly placed 5 balls, "open your eyes" I shout, they do and again observe the balls ALL moving away from me and the new balls from each other in a different direction. I ask them to close their eyes one last time, I set-up the previous ball placement, but now I place the rest of the balls in an hexagonal close-packed (hcp) arrangement around the 10th again, which now resembles a honeycomb structure, I kick the 1st ball, that force pushes the line of ten balls which in turn pushes all the newly placed balls and I say "open your eyes!" they do and again observe the balls ALL moving away from me and the new balls from each other in all directions. They ask "how did you kick all those balls at once?!" and I answer, "I didn't, I only kicked one, the others balls were already out there, touching each other!" So Just because all the balls are moving away from the line of ten balls, doesn't mean they all came from the point of impact on the pitch, at the 1stball's position.
    I use this analogy to falsify the singularity in the big bang model. Just because all the galaxies are moving away from each other doesn't mean they came from the same point. This analogy shows that the 'matter', atoms, plasma what ever you want to call it, was already 'out there' in what we know as space. This 'matter' simply could have been pushed or pulled away by an initial undetermined 'force'. Maybe not even a point specific force. This initial force could have happened simultaneously in many different places thought this 'matter-verse'
    So using this analogy we can determine that all 'matter' & fields did not come from one specific point like in the big bang model. So my idea of a infinite ball pool (atomism), this idea of an early universe has no 'space' to speak of, it has been filled by rewinding the fusion process. I predict this matter is motionless relative to their neighbouring 'matter'. Each point specific field or matter would only vibrate or osculate on its own axis, jostling amongst its neighbours. Now lets start the fusion process, to do this we need movement. Fusion occurs when two light atoms bond together, or fuse, to make a heavier one. The total mass of the new atom is less than that of the two that formed it; the "missing" mass is given off as energy, as described byAlbert Einstein's famous "E=mc2" equation. But what could have started this motion, this first fusion, in a universe full of mass. How does a suppose particle filled universe begin to move and fuse? I have an idea how but will not go into it here, I leave this open this to debate. I suspect frequency, waves and magnetic 'poles' has something to do it.
    Getting back to my theory, attached is a simple image to aid help visualise galactic contraction. The distance in between any two galaxies will increase as the atoms of those galaxies fuse, stars fuse their atoms through their individual life cycles, dust clouds become panets and the pressure fuses atoms, creating more and more space. Some galaxies are larger than their neighbours (Galaxy 1), gaining more force/pull on other adjacent galaxies which devour slower (Galaxy2), resulting in a pull towards the stronger force i.e. larger mass. The weaker force galaxy will still act on other galaxies adjacent. Each galaxy/black hole is connected using magnetism and electricity to the closest galaxy/black hole neighbour. I liken this to a spiders web, if i pull on any part of the web the other web parts move toward it, if I stretch the web, all parts would move away from each other, uniformly. If all distances between black holes increase with time/motion then the pull in all directions will act on every galaxy. If each black hole is connected they will spread out as the stronger force acts on all adjacent galaxies filling the available 'space' created. So maybe this is why they appear to be spreading apart, I call it Uniform Web Contraction.
    If any distance between two objects in space is reversed, it will always decrease until it gets to zero, not minus. Just because objects are moving away from an area doesn’t mean they came from there! I see the universe as if the 'atoms' were already 'out there', in an atom like filled universe.
    When fields merge i.e. fuse together to create bigger fields, 'space' is created, therefore galaxies shrink with movement. Space by definition in the absence of any matter. It has no attributions. The universe it not actually expanding, its the positions of "matter" which is uniformly pulling and being pulled or pushed in all directions, as to a stationary observer everything moves away. What actually is happening is fusion is creating more and more space as matter fuses creating larger point specific fields, galaxies are moving into the space created by pulling or pushing on their neighbouring galaxies.
    We have to take Consciousness Out of the Equations to truly understand how the universe works. Time = The measurement of the motion of mass. Consciousness gives us a memory (past) and perception (future). If there was no motion there would be nothing to measure to create a 'time'. Everything exists as a 'constant' which happens to be moving, movement creates change. We as conscious creatures, measure that movement, that change, we compare it to other measurements to time the motion of our existence.
    Have anyone here read Art Hobsons, 'There are no particles, there are only fields'?

  17. Is it possible that red shift is caused by time dilation near gravity wells? Since the early universe was more compact wouldn't gravity be greater for the area being observed? The distant objects are from an era far in the past, and during that time in the early universe everything was closer togeather. Or is the red shift caused because the area being observed is so far in the past that inflation was faster at that time and thus red shif was greater at that time. Eventually all light would fade to red and then invisible because you cant observe the big bang. Reminds me of an object falling into a black hole. Inflation isn't the only possibility. Or is the universe just a hall of mirrors amd not that big at all? Or is the Electric Universe true?

  18. EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE IS MAN MADE LAW DEFYING AND MATHEMATICS AND NUMBERS ARE VERY STATIC, WHILE THE UNIVERSE IS EVER CHANGING AND DYNAMIC AND WILL NEVER BE EXPLAINED BY USING MATHEMATICS AND NUMBERS ALONE. THERE ARE UNSEEN FORCES AT WORK ALL THE TIME THAT CAN NEVER BE MEASURED. THESE FORCES ARE MAN MADE LAW DEFYING AND PEOPLE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO ENTIRELY PUT A HANDLE ON IT OR MAKE IT ALL FIT INSIDE A NICE NEAT STATIC EQUATION WHEN THE UNIVERSE IS RANDOM AND NEVER CONSTANT OR PRECISE AT ALL AND IS ENTIRELY DYNAMIC.

  19. big bang theory from universe coming from one particle is the same as god creation, universe has always been here forever.

  20. Actually, Lemaitre proposed that the "Big Bang" emanated from the explosion of singularity, not a "single atom." A singularity is a purely hypothetical mathematical construct, not a physical entity like an atom.

  21. It isn't science that is "building castles in the air," it is the bastardization of science by charlatans pretending to be scientists.

  22. Can I rub this video in the face of every pompous fop who regurgitates their 9th grade science textbooks with an air of superiority and assuredness?

  23. (17:12) "… to infer that space and time are a fabric in which gravity can wave is ludicrous. It's tantamount to saying that space exists in and of itself and is capable of alteration."

    Is General Relativity being rejected?

  24. My theory.  No beginning…. (not the big bang as many think).  Existence was infinite and immediate.  We haven't been around long enough to verify C²… after all, cosmological constants don't reveal themselves readily, unless there's a preconceived notion they are there… usually after we've invented the MATH to describe/explain it…. we just haven't come up with the correct model.  We have A model, but it's the one we theorized is 'the here and now.'

  25. Inertia?!  what EXACTLY is that?  At the present (in this actual time and this actual space), we invented it (through mathematics).  We could not intuitively recognize it until we invented the means (numbers) to illustrate it.

  26. Comprehension = theoretical physics.  In theory, we explain what we think/believe/imagine is 'provable.'  Otherwise, who cares?  It seems to be an exercise…. of what?

  27. HEY!.. Steve Smith…. Thank YOU.   You are, in my opinion, correct that assumptions should not be the BASIS of NEW theories…. because we haven't PROVED the previous ones.   BRAVO!

  28. Confucius was right!  To know a thing and recognize you know it… AND when you do not know a thing to recognize you do NOT know it…. that is knowledge.

  29. This was fantastic. Inflation is, by far, the weakest link in mainstream cosmology. It is worth mentioning, too, that Guth has retracted from inflation. I also found the considerations of the substance of space to be very refreshing.

  30. As a layperson, I have read about, and struggled to understand the ideas of standard cosmology, for decades. The concepts of inflation and vacuum energy are examples of puzzles I simply have to accept, even though they defy common sense. However, through the electric universe theories, I am coming to realize the standard model may actually be bogus, and that is part of why it is so hard to understand. Thank you, Thunderbolts Project!

  31. as people are stating electricity as no major part in the structure of the universe i must point out that even shows like how the universe works now says that magnetic fields play a major part in galaxy and star production, they talk of stars forming on magnetic flux ropes that carry masses of electrically charged particles, what you would call an electric current. the EU community has spoke of this for years and only received the psuedo science badge for their efforts. i'm happy to say that i hear more and more mention of magnetic effects but sadly no mention of the electric currents that are required to sustain them in mainstream science, i think we may be at a turning point and they can no longer deny the elephant in the room

  32. It's just fun knowing you have been lied to an entire lifetime. !!!!! Change the name of education to I just don't damn know. And people can't believe in a CREATOR . My people die from lack of knowledge. BIBLE.

  33. Dogma exemplifies our society and ideas such as the electric universe that have validity are censored, this is despite our societies propaganda that says it is open to new ideas, rather than suffering from hubris. That's why seeking out ThunderboltsProject etch are important for those avoiding the thought police.

  34. Precisely!  If true, expansion (inflation) is/was exceeding the speed of light (C²), then why believe it's slowed down.  It's a WHAT IF?.. Since the beginning, why would it be speeding up?  … why isn't it slowing down?   What if the speed of light (C²) isn't the cosmological constant we think it is.  What if, (C²) is only calculable in this space-time (here-and-now).  What if we could travel outside (our here-and-now – (C²) and find out over/out there it's NOT (C²)…  Then what?.. What then?

  35. Quick question: What if the "big bang", was not a point of infinite density exploding out, but actually a "big rip" in the fabric of space that allowed all matter and energy INTO our universe?

  36. electricity is what powers the cosmos imagine if your brain and nervous system had no electrical signals:-) something for all you big bangers out there to reflect upon and remember this everyone has a black hole full of dark matter:-)

  37. Wy did you get sucks in to your office in that case how much do you need someone now GATT your soul and body works best for you guys and the position of HR executive decision junk your mad on this planet fitness center and the other one diys falls through I'll of course

  38. If the universe is expanding. what about thermal dynamics? Theoretical physicist AKA science fiction storytellers must disclude that law too

  39. lol, at the end, he comments on absurd space stretching concepts. Meanwhile, Thunderbolds just put out a video proposing that light used a mystical and magical spacial ether. That light was a wave. It is obviously not a wave. It is quite clear that it is a particle exclusively. However, it is a wave when you take groups of particles at once, in other words, a wave is a compound effect of particle interaction. This explanation satisfies all tests results and predicts unexplored phenomenon.

  40. He says that it's "ludicrous" that space and time are connected and that they can be warped… So he's saying Einstein's General Relativity is ludicrous? Where is his counterproof? This video presented lots of evidence that should bring into question many of today's theories regarding the evolution of the Universe, but to say that GR is ludicrous is in itself ludicrous, since it is so good at making predictions. Not only that, but gravitational waves were detected, which pretty much proves GR to be reality…

  41. This is utter nonsense. Just a series of unsupported assertions with no mathematical or systematic critical analysis. New age word salad.

  42. I can live with the thoughts discussed in this video. Even though I have no scientific background I never believed in the weird theories of Big Bang and the expansion, etc…I also suspect that scientists don't really know what comprise black holes. The singularity theory is pure bull shit.

  43. I see two properties of the alien ancestral sky waved into the theory of the universe.
    The scientists seem to know, either subconsciously or secretly-consciously, that our planets were once in close congregation but are now far away. Our solar system has expanded. They make an expanding universe out of it.
    Then there was the time of the primeordeal haze when the sky was a constant lightsource. No timekeeping based on regular celestial events was possible. It was a time "before time". The official scientists come up with a theory that before the Big Bang, there was no such thing as time.

  44. The general form of two galaxies connected by a "luminous arm" as discovered by ARP is eerily (vaguely?) similar to the "rubber duck" form of some asteroids.

  45. I see. Apparently this guy is either not a physicist, or not a physicist. For one he misrepresents how the big bang is actually described, and some minor historical errors, he also doesnt know that in qm, space is described as a matrix of field pertubations. These same fields he depends on for his 3lectric universe, for which he hasnt been able to generate a mechanism for, just presents as a statement kf fact.

  46. I like the tone of this video. This Art Halton guy was getting it exactly right, but does anyone know why?
    It is what I have been trying to tell you guys for a while, while trying to avoid the science wars.
    The current theories are all wrong, this Art guy is right, but he is getting one thing wrong, its not age causing red shift.
    What our universe is doing is conserving energy and entropy, its a perpetual machine, and if you see that, you start to see how it all works.
    And I mean everything, you will know there are no black holes, you will know that a quasar is entropy moving in one direction, and a galaxy is entropy moving in the other direction. You will know what a sun really is, you will know what gravity really is.
    And you will start to see what atoms really are, how quantum entanglement works, and what Sonic-luminescence is.
    Yeah! Look at how that energy is conserved and it ALL falls out, even how to make cold fission.
    That is what you are missing, that is the holy grail.
    I know you scientists are not going to listen to an engineer, so just look at what Art is saying and then look for that Perpetual machine, its there, if you look, and then everything clicks into place, the whole of science as we know it.

  47. Your argument, whether correct or not, presupposes a Newtonian concept of space, whereas modern physicists operate on a Leibnizian understanding.

  48. This project is a breath of fresh air. The math (evolutionary algorithms) disproving almost all of Einstein's relativity begins at this short article:
    http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/gravity/speed-of-gravity.htm

  49. I want to poke at your video just a bit if that's ok. The statement at the end that said "space is a domain without substance since it's where substance exists" is highly illogical. I understand space (as we understand it today) is primarily a vacuum, aside from the plasma of mainly hydrogen and helium we call the intergalactic medium, but that separation between space and the substances that make up our earth (for example) is an error in logic that shouldn't be used to help form a basis to discredit other ideas. Space lacks the density of materials that form our planet but it's not separate. Thinking of space as a container is a problem conceptually. All is connected and part of the same 'thing' that is this reality we are a part of. Conceiving of space as a container is a poor logic because, in reality, it's an issue of density and scale. Zoom into the human body and we find a whole lot of space between things too. zoom out far enough and the universe appears quite dense. At our scale space is vast and empty but the same would be said of our own bodies at the scale of a proton. The error in logic stems from basing perception of such huge ideas from our human scale. It's a small slip but it can lead to assumptions that that don't seem right when we are aware of the slip-up. The universe, as we currently perceive it, is all beautifully, mysteriously connected – kind of like a fabric of some kind. 🙂 Grandma's knitted sweater is conceptually more accurate than thinking of space as a container. I applaud the desire to descent, we need more people questioning established ideas and why they are so. Thanks for the video and the ideas your sharing. This lowly youtube commenter will now slink back into the empty space of the ambiguous masses from whence I came. nerd power!

  50. 'They' . . deny the existence of a 'ether' that allows the electrical connection of galaxies & stipulate that space is a empty void , but then believe that the void has substance that can be stretched or shrunk to fit their inflationary model ? ?

  51. The Big Bang Never Happened. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=P-B2hACS0dQ Refutes the Big Bang Theory totally in a way anyone can understand. Cosmic Evolution = Billions Of Years + Your Imagination. | The Herouni Antenna is the death of the big bang. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lKQMEYYLw

  52. The science of yesterday had the scientific method. The science of today has science consensus. Why? Because global warming!

  53. has there ever been a shown violation of the theory of relativity? maybe it's matter of description and attribution not mathematics. what's the relationship of electricity to time?

  54. Steve Smith is one of the best additions to the thunderbolts team. Not only does he have a soothing pleasant voice but he knows what he's talking about from doing great research on great works.

  55. The quasar theory is mind-blowing if prooved to be true. Some of the statement here are very challenging: if the redshift is really disconnected from the distance, the big bang theory is toasted! I can't wrap up my mind on this topic….and actually if the quasar is a baby born galaxy the only man in the world that has the complete truth in his poket was Tesla (everything is light!).

  56. If space is expending there would be only red shift. That's 3 dimensional expansion, that's also ecelerating faster and faster. Nothing would be heading towards anything else. Everything should be red shift. Andromada would not be blue and galaxies could never collide. Space is expanding whats pushing you towards me is pushing me away from you faster if I'm even slightly older Im going faster than you, and if I were behind you, I could never catch up. Older never gets caught by younger, older never catches older and galaxies would fall further and further apart and away, until hitting close to, or at, the speed of light and be in star wars type hyperdrive. I wonder in that galaxy what would that be like. you would believe yours is the only one there is. Light from anything else could not catch you. There would be nothing to observe and why bother with any of this. Why even create. And there is just what, empty space ahead of it, why is there just infinate empty space waiting for invisible galaxies to come haulin ass thru to even more empty space. And dig this if there is a multiverse, first conyact between universes would be galaxies at the speed of light, now on projections that would enable them to cross vector and to crash, head on into each other at the speed of light. A giant collider. That would be the formal introduction. And the explosions, so pretty, so bright, make cern look like a pee shooter. Every universe would collide with another universe eventually, and pop the continuity of the other like bubbles in a bath tub. Compress ing there matter into the other still intact one. Yeah but who made the tub and where did the water, the soap, the digusting film on the side, come from. And you end up at the same place. No matter how many universe or demensions you have because they would eventually merge or be obsorbed. But the water still dripping making more. It makes everything even more complecated. Why is there this process ever, when did it begin. Cause that would supersede our universe's creation. Or it all happened at once. From nothing. It makes everything insignificant. Not even a fluke, just a meaningless one of many many. Is Death so scary that your so angry about it, that you must kill the universe, because you've made it, and sell it, as fact, the universe is a bully but ha, it's mortal like me. And Damn it. It fuckin dies too. Feel better.

  57. While studying mineralogical infrared, I found that as minerals increase in refractive index, they red-shift for what is called the Fundamental Region of mineral vibrations. The vibrations do not occur everywhere, they occur in a specific part of the spectrum. As minerals increase in density, they also increase in refractive index. This has been know for maybe 100 years or more. So we can put the three together in simple commutative logic and show that as minerals increase in density, they will red shift. I have shown this for quartz in a draft paper. What do stars do? Consume light elements and make heavy elements. Therefore such a model would predict old stars red shift. Red shifting is a doppler effect of a moving source of light. It is also related to refractive index and density when the light encounters and refracts off an object. Red shift quanta would infer from that a compositional series of stars at various states that is not continuous. Quasars connected to galaxies would infer they have different composition and density that the companion galaxy.

  58. Steven Smith nailed it! I love that episode! It's just like a most simple test of logic, if you watch this and still don't get it, you're just hopeless case.

  59. I have an honest question: What does the author know about quantum physics?? Cause today's scientists believe that these other galaxies, may not even behave like our own. It would depend on the physics in that particular universe. I see where he's trying to come from, but don't say "scientist" phone it in with 'general relativity'. You know they don't heck in 2014 this is confirmation of the theory : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9_hsvD7QP0 Please, if it is what you think… go back to school please. Update yourself. Please.

  60. Just wondering what the Thunderbolts team think about the gravitational waves discovered recently by LIGO, and what they make of the supposed super massive black holes postulated at the centre of galaxies, whose formation has no known mechanism in a big bang cosmos?

  61. Arp has been debunked may times with subsequent data. And your using an antiquated conjecture article from 1959 and persisting it as fact.

  62. Hubble wrote down 5 possibilities for what he observed. The expansion of the Universe, he considered to be the least likely of all those possibilities.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *