What is wrong with present-day accepted astrophysics ?
It is not scientific. In today's world many people characterize themselves as being 'scientists'. Only those who always carefully follow the scientific method are deserving of that title. Modern establishment astrophysics fails the test in several ways.
It is not scientific. In today's world many people characterize themselves as being 'scientists'. Only those who always carefully follow the scientific method are deserving of that title. Modern establishment astrophysics fails the test in several ways.
Scientists are distinguishable from artists, poets, musicians, and others in that they use what is known as the 'scientific method'. It is not that 'inspiration' or 'the muse' is not valuable in science, it is - but it is not the starting point of what we call science. In the process called the scientific method a true scientist will:
- Observe nature - carefully record what is seen.
- Seek patterns in the observed data - put numbers on the data - fit equations to those numbers.
- Generalize those equations into a word description of the process - this is a hypothesis.
- Carry out experiments and/or gather independent data to see how well the hypothesis predicts future observations and results. This is called "closing the loop" on your hypothesis.
- Reject, or modify the hypothesis if the experiments show it falls short of success in these predictions.
- Only after the results of several experiments have been successfully predicted by the hypothesis, can it be called a theory.
If two different theories predict a given phenomenon equally well, the simpler theory is probably the best one. This principle is called Occam's Razor.
Theories can never be proven to be correct - some other mechanism entirely may be the cause of the observed data. But theories can be disproved if they fail to predict the outcomes of additional experiments. Such theories are termed to be falsified. Sometimes the scientific method as described above is called the empirical method.
Theories can never be proven to be correct - some other mechanism entirely may be the cause of the observed data. But theories can be disproved if they fail to predict the outcomes of additional experiments. Such theories are termed to be falsified. Sometimes the scientific method as described above is called the empirical method.
As an alternative to the empirical method, there is a method of deriving theories from assumed generalizations about the universe. This is called the deductive method. In this process one starts with a "law of nature" or "obviously correct" generalization about the "way things work" and deduces (reasons out - derives) its consequences in detail. A hypothesis arrived at via this method is promoted to the status of being a Theory if a large enough body of experts 'accept' it. Thus, in this method, a vote of the experts determines if a theory is correct. Once such a theory has been accepted it is not easily rejected in light of conflicting evidence; it is, however, often modified - made more complex - and, unfortunately, new data is often selectively chosen to support it.
The selection and publication of only the data that support the accepted theory is expedited by the "peer review system". If the experts who have accepted a given theory control both the funding of future research and also what gets published, there is little chance for conflicting viewpoints to develop.
Some hypotheses, when presented by august, well established scientists, are given credence without anyone questioning whether the hypothesis has been developed using the scientific method. Yet in most cases it is not difficult to check whether or not the scientific method has been used correctly. For example, consider the hypothesis that "There are gnomes in my garden that always make themselves invisible when anyone tries to observe them." Clearly, no conceivable experiment or observation could falsify that statement. This is evidence the hypothesis comes from a pseudo-scientific source. Legitimate theories must be falsifiable.
The Problem Faced by Modern Astronomy is that Experiments Are Not Possible
Because the stars are light years away, we cannot hope to be able to go there and perform experiments on them. Until relatively recently even the planets were out of our reach. Thus, cosmologists never get to complete the scientific method. We cannot 'close the loop' in cosmology. But, if we cannot test our hypotheses, how can we reject or modify them? The answer, of course, is that astrophysicists, more than those in any other branch of science, must be exceedingly careful to continually examine their hypotheses in light of any new data. It is the contention of the author [...] that they have not been doing this.
The images of the four small objects in the Einstein Cross when looked at only from this viewpoint, are considered to be supporting evidence for the GR Theory. However, they could just as well be interpreted as being evidence supporting a much simpler cosmological theory.
Evidence contradictory to the accepted Big Bang Theory, such as images of connections between objects that have widely different red shift values, are dismissed as being mirages.
False Assumptions in Astrophysics
Most of today's accepted astronomy/cosmology is a set of deductively arrived at hypotheses precariously based on two false assumptions :
Most of today's accepted astronomy/cosmology is a set of deductively arrived at hypotheses precariously based on two false assumptions :
- Electrical fields, currents, and plasma discharges are not important in space. Only gravitational and magnetic fields are important.
- If the light from an object exhibits redshift, the object must be speeding away from us. And its distance from us is directly proportional to that speed.
Both of these assumptions are demonstrably wrong. They have been, and continue to be, contradicted by actual observations of the sky. Those observations tell us that
- The universe is highly electrical in nature.
- Redshift is more a measure of an object's youth than its velocity.
Invisible Entities Invented To Patch Up Failing TheoriesThe theories that have sprung from these faulty, overly complicated mathematical models have given birth to such arcane notions as: curved space, neutron stars, WIMPs (and now WIMPZILLAS), MACHOs, several different types of black holes, superluminal jets, dark energy, and magnetic field lines that pile-up, merge and reconnect. All of these inventions are fictions put forth by astrophysicists in desperate efforts to defend their theories when faced with contradicting observations. None have ever been observed or photographed. Many of them are demonstrably impossible. But their existence is repeatedly invoked to explain new observations and measurements that contradict the enshrined theories of modern astronomy without resorting to the use of electrical principles.
We continually hear statements such as, "There must be a black hole at the center of that galaxy." (Otherwise we cannot explain its level of energy output.) "There must be invisible dark matter in that galaxy." (Otherwise we cannot explain how it rotates the way it does.) "Ninety nine percent of the universe is made up of dark energy." (Otherwise the Big Bang Theory is falsified.) "Pulsars must be made up of strange matter." (Otherwise we might have to look for an electrical explanation). We are also asked to believe that two objects (like galaxy NGC 4319 and its companion Markarian 205) are not connected together even though we have photographs of the connection. So, we are told not to believe in the things that we can see, but that we should believe in the existence of the magic entities that their theories require - even though we cannot see or measure them.
There have been several instances in the past when the astronomical mainstream has long rejected an idea that is later accepted. There is usually no public disgrace for the in-group who were on the wrong side of the issue. When, after being viciously denigrated, the validity of a new idea becomes inescapably obvious, a few years go by, and then we quietly hear: "Well, Everyone has known for a Long Time that this (the new idea) was always true." An example of this is Hannes Alfvén's discovery of plasma waves. This relatively recently discovered property of plasmas is now being wrongly used by astrophysicists to explain away all sorts of (what is for them) enigmatic phenomena - such as the temperature inversion in the Sun's lower corona.
The Future
In a few years, perhaps we will hear: "Well, Everyone has known for a Long Time that quasars are not extremely distant, and red shift is more a measure of the youth of an object than its recessional velocity and distance. No one said for sure there ever was a Big Bang. It was just another false theory. Everyone has known for a Long Time that electric currents flowing in plasmas produce many of the mysterious observed solar and cosmic phenomena." And we will not hear of machos, wimps, neutronium, dark energy, and broken magnetic field lines from any serious scientist ever again.
Time will tell. Will the founders of the Electric / Plasma Universe Theory be acknowledged as having been the pathfinders they are? Or will lesser men quietly adopt these ideas without giving credit to their originators and then claim them to be 'well known'?
More HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE
In a few years, perhaps we will hear: "Well, Everyone has known for a Long Time that quasars are not extremely distant, and red shift is more a measure of the youth of an object than its recessional velocity and distance. No one said for sure there ever was a Big Bang. It was just another false theory. Everyone has known for a Long Time that electric currents flowing in plasmas produce many of the mysterious observed solar and cosmic phenomena." And we will not hear of machos, wimps, neutronium, dark energy, and broken magnetic field lines from any serious scientist ever again.
Time will tell. Will the founders of the Electric / Plasma Universe Theory be acknowledged as having been the pathfinders they are? Or will lesser men quietly adopt these ideas without giving credit to their originators and then claim them to be 'well known'?
More HERE & HERE & HERE & HERE