More Big Problems for Big Bang | Space News

Welcome to Space News from
the Electric Universe, brought to you by The
Thunderbolts Project™ at For many decades, the standard
cosmological model has stated that the universe began many
billions of years ago with a primordial explosion
called The Big Bang. Beginning from an
unimaginably hot dense point, material rushed outward at
nearly the speed of light and to this day the physical expansion
of the universe is thought to continue. When scientists found evidence for the apparent
acceleration of the expansion rate of the universe, the hypothetical influence
of dark energy was invented. For a scientific hypothesis to be
testable, it must make predictions and the technological data available to test
the Big Bang hypothesis has never been finer. For over five years,
in this series, we have reported on numerous
theory-shattering discoveries that challenge the very
underpinnings of the Big Bang. From impossibly huge structures
that exceed the size limits for any object at this time
in the Big Bang universe, to so-called “ancient stars” whose
chemical composition is completely wrong if they formed from material
in the early universe. To grand-design galaxies that display a complexity
of form that defy their theoretical age. To evidence that the so-called expansion of the
universe is accelerating at an impossibly fast rate, even accounting for dark
energy’s influence. Many scientists have
acknowledged the major problems these discoveries posed
for Big Bang cosmology. Nevertheless, consensus
scientific opinion remains that the Big Bang is the best current
theory for the origins of our universe. Indeed, a recent Scientific
American article aroused a response from some of the world’s
most revered cosmologists, that demonstrates just how slow and difficult
is real change in the culture of science. The article in question entitled “Cosmic
Inflation Theory Faces Challenges” proposed that the universe began with a
so-called Big Bounce instead of a Big Bang. The authors question
cosmologists’ interpretations of measurements of the so-called
Cosmic Microwave Background. Specifically, they disagree with the
interpretation that data first published in 2013 proves that an extremely fast
inflation occurred after a Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. They state, “If anything, the Planck data
disfavored the simplest inflation models and exacerbated long-standing
foundational problems with the theory, providing new reasons to consider competing ideas
about the origin and evolution of the universe… Yet even now the cosmology
community has not taken a cold, honest look at the
big bang inflationary theory or paid significant attention to critics
who question whether inflation happened.” In a response letter to the
controversial article, 33 scientists, including physicist Stephen
Hawking, began with a statement, “There is no disputing the fact that inflation
has become the dominant paradigm in cosmology.” They then accused the authors of, “dismissing the
research of not only all the authors of this letter but also that of a substantial
contingent of the scientific community.” However, the problems for Big
Bang cosmology reach far beyond anything that Hawking and his
colleagues seem ready to acknowledge. On the question of the so-called
Cosmic Microwave Background, or CMB, the conclusion that the radiation
is a “background at all” begins with the
assumption of a Big Bang. But, as previously
discussed in this series, ample evidence exists to consider that
the “asymmetric radiation” is, in fact, a locally produced foreground. As physicist Wal Thornhill
has explained, proponents of the Electric Universe and
Plasma Cosmology argue that the radiation is due
to microwave radiation from the filamentary galactic electric currents
flowing in the neighborhood of the sun. In fact, some of the
expected structures, a galaxy-wide sample of dense
filamentary structures correlated with spiral arms and star formation,
have been recently mapped. The image on your screen is an example
of a network of galactic filaments. As Thornhill notes, we see a roughly
orthogonal branching of tributaries, which is characteristic of
an electrical discharge. This principle is seen in this comparison
with experimental discharge filaments. If the CMB is, in fact, what
physicist Eric Lerner has described as a “radio fog of dense
plasma filaments” its presence tells us nothing
about the age of the universe. The local origins of the radiation
would also help explain the seemingly baffling discovery of
apparently vast and remote cosmic voids. The appearance of a cold spot where
the “temperature of an area of space is interpreted as significantly
lower than the surrounding region” suggests the presence of a void where
many galaxies should be observed. The interpretation of the
size of the so-called “void” is based on the assumption that the
redshift of the surrounding galaxies provides an accurate measure of
the object size and distance. In recent years, some scientists have
offered the incredible speculation that such a void is actually the
imprint of a parallel universe. In fact, the concept of parallel
universes or the multiverse is a theory championed by the
aforementioned Stephen Hawking as well as Brian
Greene, Michio Kaku and the current host of the television
show Cosmos, Neil deGrasse Tyson. Ironically, at the time that cosmologist
Carl Sagan wrote his iconic book, Cosmos, challenges to the very foundations
of the Big Bang were still permitted. On the question of whether the Doppler
interpretation of galactic redshift is a reliable indicator
of an expanding universe, Sagan wrote, “There is nevertheless a
nagging suspicion among some astronomers, that all may not be right
with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler
effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found
enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar,
or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association
have very different redshifts…” Sagan continues, “If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain
the energy source of distant quasars — supernova chain reactions,
supermassive black holes and the like — would prove unnecessary. Quasars need not then
be very distant. But some other exotic mechanism will
be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something very strange is
going on in the depths of space.” At the other end of the spectrum
from so-called “vast cosmic voids” are the objects that
appear impossibly huge. One such object, the
quasar cluster huge LQG, is supposedly so enormous it would
comprise about 5% of the visible universe. As one astronomer said of the discovery, it
“…upsets the foundation of everything we do.” The force of gravity is weak and
takes time to move things around. The elapsed time, since
the conjectured Big Bang, sets a limit on how big
any structure can be. Structures exceeding that limit are, by the
cosmologists’ own admission, impossible. One possible solution to this
enigma is that the objects, simply, are not as distant and huge as they
appear based on their measured redshift. Halton Arp proposed that the redshift of
quasars depends not only on a velocity value but also its
“intrinsic redshift.” This would be a property of matter
that is subject to change over time. Arp found that the intrinsic redshift, of
a quasar or galaxy, took discrete values which decreased with the distance
from a central active galaxy. In Arp’s hypothesis, many mature
galaxies of a specific type eject newborn objects
called QSO-s or quasars and these objects grow up to be
companion galaxies of their parents. As they move away from the parent,
their mass and brilliance changes, their velocity slows and they tend to begin
to fall back toward the parent galaxy. Proponents of the Electric Universe, including
physicist and chief science advisor to The Thunderbolts
Project, Wal Thornhill, agree with Arp’s thesis
of quasar ejection. However, Thornhill disagrees
with Arp’s description of the mass of quasars
increasing with time. Arp proposed that the existence of
a new quasar becomes recognized by matter in the rest of the
universe at the speed of light. But in Thornhill’s view, an initially
positively charged quasar is followed by a beam of electrons
from its parent galaxy, which would explain both the quantized
redshift and increase in mass. These electrons may come in bursts,
like the quasar ejections themselves, which, if true, would predict and explain
seemingly impossibly sudden changes in quasars. As we reported last
year in this series, many recently discovered objects in space
lend great credence to this thesis. A team of astronomers, using
the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, observed quasars behaving in a manner that
completely up-ends conventional theory. Using images from the
Pan-STARRS survey, the scientists
identified 1,000 objects that appear to vary in brightness
over a period of just 10 years. Among these objects were a total of
5 galaxies that the team witnessed shape-shifting into quasars in a seemingly
impossibly short period of time. The team also recorded a
total of a dozen quasars “shutting down in a period
of hundreds of days” rather than the hundreds of thousands
of years required by standard theory. As reported by, “Astronomers expect quasars to use up their
fuel and settle down into quiet galaxies — a process that should take
hundreds of thousands of years. So last year, when a dozen quasars
were spotted shutting down in just hundreds of
days, it was a shock.” In subsequent decades, as demonstrated by
the recent protests of Hawking and company, little has changed in
the culture of science. The seemingly endless cosmic surprises
have yet to force any real reassessment of the cherished 13.5 billion
year “history of the universe.” Institutional science remains
unready to confront the possibility that based on our current
limited knowledge, we must accept the universe
of unknown age and extent. So the surprises for
cosmologists will only continue since nature seems to have
no regard for human beliefs. For continuous updates on Space
News from the Electric Universe, stay tuned to