The Big Bang theory was constructed from our knowledge of nuclear physics back in the day. Abnd i do mean back in the day. I read George Gamov's book describing it as a teenager in 1965 and it was twenty years old then.
those early calculations led to that fourteen billion age number. It is a number. Turns out we need a lot more time to get what we think we see. I certainly have no problem with that at all.
Our galaxy is old and the extended universe is older still. Yet the act of creation has been travelling toward us and away from us for as long as we can imagine.
That expansion rate of the universe is near zero now and somewhere out there matter is also been destroyed and converted back into light. I wonder if we will ever really know if we are in balance.
Censored Papers Demolish the Big Bang Hypothesis
Trio of Papers Predicting What JWST Will Find and Showing that the Big Bang Never Happened are Censored
Three technical papers made public today demonstrate conclusively that the Big Bang never happened, that the most popular theory of the origin of the universe has been refuted by abundant observational evidence. The three papers by Eric J. Lerner, Chief Scientist at LPPFusion, Inc, a fusion-energy research firm, and Dr. Riccardo Scarpa, Senior Researcher, Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, home to the world’s largest telescope, do not appear in a journal or even on the widely used pre-print website arXiv because they have been censored by arXiv leadership and others. Instead, they only appear on LPPFusion’s own website here.
The censorship of these papers is part of a general pattern of recent censorship of papers critiquing the Big Bang Hypothesis, and is being protested by a growing petition from scientist from many countries. See “Scientists Protest Censorship in Cosmology“. “The Big Bang Hypothesis no longer can be defended scientifically “, says Lerner, “so it being defended only by censorship. We are shouting that the Emperor has no clothes, while the cosmological establishment is trying to put their hands over our mouths.”
“This cosmology debate has consequences here on earth,” emphasizes Lerner. “The same phenomena that are important in driving the real evolution of the universe are those we can use to develop fusion energy. In fact, some of this research contributed to work that has allowed LPPFusion to produce fusion results far ahead of any other private companies. Free debate of basic science is what has always lead to technological advance. Censorship leads to stagnation.” A video presentation previewing the papers for a general audience is available here.
JWST Won’t See Evidence of the Big Bang
The first paper, by both Scarpa and Lerner, is titled: “Will LCDM cosmology survive the James Webb Space Telescope?”. It looks at the upcoming initial releases of data from the new JW Space Telescope. The paper compares the predictions of what JWST will observed if the Big Bang Hypothesis is valid or if it is not and there was no hot, dense beginning to the universe 14 billion years ago. Predicting data ahead of observations is crucial to testing the scientific validity of hypotheses and is central to the usefulness of science.
One crucial prediction of the Big Bang, expanding-universe hypothesis is that because of an optical illusion, extremely distant galaxies will not appear smaller and smaller on the sky but larger and larger. The illusion occurs because the galaxies are hypothesized to be closer to us when they emitted the light than they are now, and therefore appear larger. If the universe is NOT expanding, however, distant galaxies will look smaller and smaller, as in ordinary space. Earlier papers by Scarpa, Lerner and colleague Renato Falomo of INAF–Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova used Hubble Space Telescope data to show that the NON-expanding prediction was confirmed out to the highest redshifts and greatest distances observable by HST (see for example Lerner’s paper published in the leading journal MNRAS). The new paper confidently predicted that this trend will be continued with JWST, generating observations of galaxies that would appear to be too small to be physically possible if the expanding universe hypothesis were true, but exactly as expected if there were no expansion.
A second key prediction of the Big Bang hypothesis is that JWST will observe the very first stars formed after the big bang, before any supernova explosions had time to spread into space the heavier elements like carbon, oxygen, silicon and iron. Spectra from quasars should show a purer and purer mix of only hydrogen and helium. But if there was no expansion, the evolution of galaxies occurred over far longer periods of time then allowed by the Big Bang hypothesis, and distant quasars should show abundant evidence of heavy elements, as existing observations already show for the most distant quasars. (Figure 1). These predictions and others in this paper will soon be tested as JWST’s team starts releasing data July 12.
Figure 1. Spectra of one of the most distant QSO known, ULAS J1120+0641 (black line) at z=7.09, compared to a composite spectrum derived from lower-redshift quasars (red line). The exact similarity shows that elements like nitrogen, silicon, and carbon (identified by their spectral bumps) were present long before they should have existed if the Big Bang happened. JWST will get spectra from even more distant quasars, contradicting Big Bang predictions even more.
Structures Too Big for the Big Bang, Formed By Plasma Filaments
The second paper, by Lerner alone, “Observations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Theory”, show with extensive recent data that observations of huge structures in space, up to 1.5 Gpc (4.5 billion light years) in radius, must have taken at least 100 billion years to form, far too long for the Big Bang, and completely invalidating the hypothesis of a 14 -billion-year-old universe. In contrast, the paper shows in detail that if the Big Bang Hypothesis is discarded, these ultra-large structures have time to form. In addition, the evolution of the large-scale structures of the universe is correctly predicted in some detail, using well-studied processes of plasma filamentation and gravitation. No dark energy or dark matter is needed to form these vast structures, but they are shown to be trillions of years old, not billions.
Figure 2. Plasma filaments, held together by magnetic fields and the electric currents that generate them are crucial in fusion energy experiments (top left, from LPPFusion FF-2B device, image height 3 cm) but also in star-forming-clouds (top-right, ALMA image, image height 1 light year(million trillion cm)) in clusters of galaxies, (bottom-left, LOFAR and SDSS image, image height 2 million light years) and superclusters of galaxies (bottom-right, map of the local universe, each dot is a galaxy, image height 500 million light years).
“The interaction of magnetic fields, electric currents and gravitational fields is all that is needed to form the structures of stars, galaxies, cluster sand superclusters we see today, nothing dark required,” explains Lerner. “The processes of the pinch effect and filamentation instability that form these giant structures in space are the same ones we see in our laboratory in fusion devices. Plasma effects are fully scalable over dozens of orders of magnitude. Studying one helps us to understand the other.“ The paper details, using the latest data, how magnetic fields in space are observed to be strong enough to act together with gravity to form structures. The quantitative predictions of the theory are confirmed by observations.
The Big Bang: 16 Wrong Answers and 1 Right Answer
The third and most comprehensive paper, again by Lerner alone is titled “The Big Bang Never Happened—A Reassessment of the Galactic Origin of Light Elements (GOLE) Hypothesis and its Implications”. The paper starts by noting that the most fundamental prediction of the Big Bang Hypotheses, that the universe started with a hot dense epoch, leads to the production of an exact amount of certain light elements and isotopes—deuterium, helium and lithium. But while the Big Bang deuterium predictions are correct, the lithium and helium predictions have been completely refuted by observations, with the lithium prediction 20 times and helium prediction double the observed abundances. Lerner shows that there are no valid explanations for these gross contradictions with the Big Bang Hypothesis. The paper then re-examines the alternative GOLE theory, that all elements other than hydrogen were formed in the early evolution of individual galaxies, without any need for a Big Bang. With the latest data and more detailed calculations this hypothesis gets all the predictions right.
The paper then steps back and surveys a complete comparison of the predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis against those of the alternative—no Big Bang. “Such a survey of the whole situation is essential”, says Lerner, “because every time a contradiction of Big Bang predictions is demonstrated, its defenders say: ‘yes, this anomaly exists, but overall the theory is strong.’ But the survey in this paper shows that the Big Bang predictions are wrong for 16 separate data sets and only right for one, the deuterium abundance.”
In addition to the helium and lithium abundance predictions, the too large structures, the impossibly small distant galaxies, contradictions already mentioned, the new paper points to the contradiction in the basic surface brightens predictions of any expanding universe (already published by Lerner and colleagues). The paper demonstrates a new contradiction with the predicted durations of supernovae explosions. It then lists the many other contradictions that have come out in the literature as the crisis in cosmology has deepened over the past few years: the wrong predictions for the Hubble constant, for the density of matter, for the flatness of the universe, for largescale fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background, for the randomness of the background, three different contradictions with dark matter predictions, for galaxy merger rates and for the well-known and very old contradiction with the amount of antimatter in the universe. The paper details when each contradiction emerged in the literature. (See Fig.3).
“I challenge any supporter of the Big Bang theory to show, based on the published literature, that the Big Bang Hypothesis has more correct predictions than wrong ones. I doubt that they can find even one correct additional prediction—and my count of 16 wrong ones is probably incomplete,” says Lerner.
The paper then shows that the Cosmic Microwave Background can also be understood without a Big Bang, as the product of energy produced by ordinary stars, scattered by plasma filaments and updates the growing observational evidence for such a “radio fog”. The only new physical hypothesis required for a non-Big Bang understanding of cosmic evolution is some new mechanism for light to lose energy as it travels, producing the redshift without expansion. But the Big Bang, inflation, dark energy and dark matter could all be dispensed with.
Figure 3. Number of independent predictions of BBH that were reported in peer-reviewed papers as verified by observations made after the predictions, against the year (long-dashed line). Number of BBH predictions that were contradicted by observations, as reported in peer-reviewed journals (short-dashed line) Number of confirmations of GOLE predictions in peer-reviewed journals (solid line). Since 2016 there are more data sets contradicting than confirming the Big Bang hypothesis and contradictions have shot up in the last three years.
With all this evidence against the Big Bang, why is the theory still so widely supported? In the paper, Lerner points to the concentration of funding sources, all controlled by adherents of the Big Bang Hypothesis. “This concentration of funding sources creates a strong ”Emperor’s-New-Clothes” effect where those who don’t see the beauty of the BBH are deemed incompetent and thus unworthy of funding,“ the paper concludes.
Now, that many are starting to see that the Emperor is indeed naked, only censorship is supporting the theory. “Censorship always holds back scientific progress” Lerner emphasizes. “This censorship must end. With open debate, it will become clear that the only way to end the crisis in cosmology is to recognize that the Big Bang never happened.”
Bios of the two authors.
Eric J. Lerner is President and Chief Scientist at LPPFusion, Inc. His research in plasma physics includes efforts in fusion energy to develop a clean, economical source of energy using the dense plasma focus device. His research in astrophysics includes the development of an electromagnetic model of quasars, which contributed to his studies in fusion; theories of the formation of large scale structure; the origin of light elements; the cosmic background radiation and other phenomena, all based on a model of a universe with no Big Bang and no origin in time. He is the author of the book, The Big Bang Never Happened (Vintage, 1992).
Riccardo Scarpa works at the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias as senior researcher at the 10 meter GRANTECAN telescope, currently the largest optical telescope in the world. After completing his doctorate studies at Padua University in 1992, he moved as post-doc at the Space Telescope Science Institute where he focused its research on AGN. In 2000 he took up a position of staff astronomer at European Southern Observatory, working at the VLT telescope at Paranal. While continuing its activity in AGN, radio galaxies, BL Lac object, and QSO, RS got interested in an alternative theory of gravity and he became an active supporter of MOND as an alternative to the dark matter hypothesis. He is the leading investigator of a project aimed to test the validity of Newtonian gravity in globular clusters, the results of which fully support the MOND hypothesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment