A whole new understanding of the UNIVERSE

[Harmageddon]

I've found something that might very well shake the foundations of modern science, specifically the field of astronomy.

It's called the electrical universe theory.

Whereas the dogmatic model of the fifties of a universe shaped by gravity and gravity alone has dominated astronomic thinking up until this very day, a new and shattering approach is dawning on the horizon.

The old Big Bang model in short:
All the mass of the universe was combined in a single point. Space and time did not exist, that is until the Big Bang. A deafening roar (were there anyone to hear it) accompanied the crack in the surface that resulted from the critical mass being condensed in such a small place.
The explosion expulsed all the mass in a chaotic fashion onward into the space/time continuum that equally raced out in all directions.
The model assumes that gravity is the principle force that shaped the planets, the stars and the galaxies from this chaos. In fact, it seems the explosion is still speeding up, giving us the present situation of an apparent evergrowing universe. . . scientists have speculated the Big Crunch (the idea that the mass of the universe will eventually collapse into itself, closing the epic circle of "life" of universes) may not even happen, resulting in an evermore empty universe, that will grow cold and dead.

This bleak picture however is now contended fiercely by the advocates of a plasma or electrical universe.

The electrical universe model states that the Big Bang model is void of factual evidence.

Redshift, the primary force behind the Big Bang theory has been shown to behave utterly against expectations.

Red shift supposedly was teling us how far observable galaxies were away from us, because as they were speeding away from the Big Bang event still, we could calculate back in time their previous positions. Thus resulting in the idea that everything was at one place 14 billion years ago.

Quasars were thought to be the furthest stars in the universe, since they had the most redshift. But now several quasars have been seen in front of galaxies, although they still show the further redshift. Something seems wrong there.

Dark Matter is also a highly debatable subject, since no-one has ever seen it, but it should theoretically be there for the Big Bang model to work: for without it, the growing speed of the universe seems lacking.

The list of anomalies that are being fixed with theoretical models that hold no observable truth is growing. Time for a change in the perception of the UNIVERSE.

The electrical universe theory in short:
Electricity, not gravity, is the shaping force of the universe, it's galaxies, stars and planets. Space is not empty. Electrical currents spanning millions of lightyears have been shown to exist, the so-called Birkeland currents. These attract one another, and when they get close, they start spinning around one another to form a massive helix. At the crossings, or "pinch" points, a torus (a donut shape) of energy forms around them. These toruses give rise to galaxies, with their stars and planets.

Electrical forces are a thousand billion billion billion billion (a brazilian ) times stronger than the forces of gravity. Therefore it is far more likely that gravity will be told to sit on the bench as electricity does it's job.

But it gets even more interesting: the ancient cultures around the globe all worshipped the planets at some point as gods. The fact that we didn't understand why the planets would be so particularly interesting to them, since they seem to be inconspicuous specks of light, may also be solved.

For the electrical universe model is also based on extensive cross examination of ancient cultural literature and art. Rock art across the planet shows pictures drawn of a man with two spheres beside him, flanking him. Plasma scientists have seen formations that look remarkably like these in their labs.

Ancient gods are pictured throwing around thunderbolts from the sky, for example Zeus, which refers to Jupiter. With the electrical model in mind, it may very well have been that the ancient civilizations actually did witness such a galactic lightningstorm which shook the earth, causing earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and the rains of fires from the skies. In short: Armageddon like events, that were real.

Thinking about it, I am convinced these people are very much on the right track here, and we may be on the verge of the shredding of the largest scientific dogma in recent times. On an interesting sidenote, organic organisms are animated by electricity as well, and just thinking about stuff like this evokes your nervous system, which is bascially an electric network.
We may be closer to the real truth, that all is one.

Thought I'd share this with you people.

Check for more: www.thunderbolts.info

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Pretty neat stuff. I want to know more about these electrically charged particles that are strung between everything. This gives credence to string theory.

 

[no1tovote4]

George Noory and Art Bell have had several Scientists on their show talking about this theory.

Their show isn't always about weird things, sometimes it is about cool things.

 

[Zhukov]

Electrical forces are a thousand billion billion billion billion (a brazilian ) times stronger than the forces of gravity.

Only on the quantum scale. On the cosmological scale gravity is god because gravitational strength is not diminished by distance. Electromagnetism is.

 

[KarlMarx]

Only on the quantum scale. On the cosmological scale gravity is god because gravitational strength is not diminished by distance. Electromagnetism is.

Sorry, gravity diminishes by the inverse square of the distance between two objects..

Gravitational force "F" is equal to

F=G*m1*m2/r**2

where G is the gravitational constant
m1 is the mass of the first object
m2 is the mass of the 2nd object
r is the distance

 

[Zhukov]

Yes, I was just looking that up to confirm what I remembered from school and I came across that very same equation for the Gravitational Force Relative Strength.

It was a few years ago....I'll have to try and figure out exactly what it is I am thinking.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

http://www.subtleenergies.com/ormus/whatisit.htm

ORMUS is cool.

 

[Zhukov]

I must have been thinking gavitational force versus the strong and weak nuclear forces since both electrolmagnetic and gravitational forces are equally dependent on the distance between the two object whereas the force of strong and weak are insignificant beyond distances greater than the radii of atmoic nuclei.

Even so, "gravitational strength is not diminished by distance", was way off.

My physics is feeling rusty. But this thread did remind me I had found the article I referred to long ago. I found this idea fascinating, mostly because it suggested a cyclic nature of our Universe:

A Brief Introduction to the Ekpyrotic Universe

Paul J. Steinhardt
Princeton University

The Ekpyrotic Model of the Universe proposes that our current universe arose from a collision of two three-dimensional worlds (branes) in a space with an extra (fourth) spatial dimension. The proposal is interesting in and of itself, but also because it is the precursor to a more powerful and explanatory theory, the Cyclic Model described in earlier links on this page.

What is the Big Bang model?

To the public, the model means that the universe began from a single point, underwent an explosion, and has been flying apart ever since.

However, the big bang is not an explosion at all. This is an unfortunate misnomer that cosmologists would like to correct. But the bad name has stuck.

The big bang is the expansion or stretching of space. It is not that things are flying out from a point. Rather, all things are moving away from each other. It is like having an infinite rubber sheet with people sitting on it. Stretch the rubber sheet, and all the people move away from one another. Each things they are at the center of an explosion. It is an optical illusion - everybody moves away from everybody else and there is no center.

Run the story going back and time and the sheet was more and more unstretched and the people were closer together. When everybody is so close they are on top of one another, that is is the beginning of the big bang picture - the cosmic singularity. At that time, the universe has nearly infinite density and temperature.

Does the new theory contradict the Big Bang model?

Here we must be careful. There are some skeptics who have written "the Big Bang never happened", by which they mean that the universe is not exapnding today and it never has been. They say this despite overwhelming evidence in favor of expansion and cooling today and for the last 15 billion years. Our model does nothing to contradict this story. That is, the universe has been expanding for the past 15 billion years.

What our model does is amend the earliest moments of the story. Instead of beginning with nearly infinite temperature and density, the universe began in a very different state - cold and nearly vacuous. The hot expanding universe we know came as a result of collision that brought the universe up to a large but finite temperature and density. The rest of the story is as the Big Bang model would have it, but the beginning is different.

Why do we need to replace the beginning of the story?

Because the Big bang model, with no amendments, would tend to produce a universe that is highly inhomogeneous, with a warped and curved space, and no natural mechanism for making stars, galaxies and larger scale structures in the universe. Cosmologists have been trying to correct these deficiencies by amending the early history of the universe - within the first billionth billionth billionths of s second or less. One proposal is the "inflationary theory" of the universe, which proposes that the universe began hot and dense, and underwent a period of hyperexpansion. The ekpyrotic model is a new alternative, which is, in many ways, a more radical departure from the Big Bang concept.

What is the Ekpyrotic proposal?

The model is based on the idea that our hot big bang universe was created from the collision of two three-dimensianal worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension. The two three-dimensional worlds collide and ``stick," the kinetic energy in the collision is converted the quarks, electrons, photons, etc., that are confined to move along three dimensions. The resulting temperature is finite, so the hot big bang phase begins without a singularity. The universe is homogeneous because the collision and initiation of the big bang phase occurs nearly simultaneously everywhere. The energetically preferred geometry for the two worlds is flat, so their collision produces a flat big bang universe. According to Einstein's equations, this means that the total energy density of the Universe is equal to the critical density. Massive magnetic monopoles, which are overabundantly produced in the standard big bang theory, are not produced at all in this scenario because the temperature after collision is far too small to produce any of these massive particles.

Quantum effects cause the incoming three-dimensional world to ripple along the extra-dimension prior to collision so that the collision occurs in some places at slightly different times than others. By the time the collision is complete, the rippling leads to small variations in temperature, which seed temperature fluctuations in the microwave background and the formation of galaxies. We have shown that the spectrum of energy density fluctuations is scale-invariant (the same amplitude on all scales). The production of a scale-invariant spectrum from hyperexpansion was one of the great triumphs of inflationary theory, and here we have repeated the feat using completely different physics.

The building blocks of the ekpyrotic theory are derived from superstring theory. Superstring theory requires extra dimensions for mathematical consistency. In most formulations, 10 dimensions are required. In the mid-1990's, Petr Horava (Rutgers) and Ed Witten (IAS, Princeton) argued that, under certain conditions, an additional dimension opens up over a finite interval. Six dimensions are presumed to be curled up in a microscopic ball, called a Calabi-Yau manifold. The ball is too small to be noticed in everyday experience, and so our universe appears to be a four-dimensional (three space dimensions and one time dimension) surface embedded in a five-dimensional space-time. This five-dimensional theory, called heterotic M-theory, was formulated by Andre Lukas (Sussex). Ovrut and Dan Waldram (Queen Mary Westerfield College). According to Horava-Witten and heterotic M-theory, particles are constrained to move on one of the three-dimensional boundaries on either side of the extra dimensional interval. Our visible universe would be one of these boundaries; the other boundary and the intervening space would be hidden because particles and light cannot not travel across the intervening space. Only gravity is able to couple matter on one boundary to the other. In addition, there can exist other three-dimensional hypersurfaces in the interval, which lie parallel to the outer boundaries and which can carry energy. These intervening planes are called ``branes," short for membranes. The collision that ignites the hot big bang phase of the ekpyrotic model occurs when a three-dimensional brane is attracted to and collides into the boundary corresponding to our visible universe.

Where does the term "ekpyrotic" come from?

The term ``ekpyrosis" means ``conflagration" in Greek, and refers to an ancient Stoic cosmological model. According to the model, the universe is created in a sudden burst of fire, not unlike the collision between three-dimensional worlds in our model. The current universe evolves from the initial fire.

Cautionary note:

As a final remark, we feel that it is important to realize that inflationary theory is based on quantum field theory, a well-established theoretical framework, and the model has been carefully studied and vetted for twenty years. Our proposal is based on unproven ideas in string theory and is brand new. While we appreciate the enthusiasm and interest with which the paper has been received, we would suggest some patience before promulgating these ideas in order to leave time for us to produce some follow-up papers that introduce additional elements and to allow fellow theorists time for criticism and sober judgment.

http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

More:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html

Which leads to...

Cyclical Model

Much better graphic here.

In the cyclic model, two parallel orbifold planes or M-branes collide periodically in a higher dimensional space. The visible four-dimensional universe lies on one of these branes. The collisions correspond to a reversal from contraction to expansion, or a big crunch followed immediately by a big bang. The matter and radiation we see today were generated during the most recent collision in a pattern dictated by quantum fluctuations created before the branes. Eventually, the universe reached the state we observe today, before beginning to contract again many billions of years in the future. Dark energy corresponds to a force between the branes, and serves the crucial role of solving the monopole, horizon, and flatness problems. Moreover the cycles can continue indefinitely into the past and the future, and the solution is an attractor, so it can provide a complete history of the universe.

An earlier cyclic model of Richard Tolman failed because the universe would undergo inevitable thermodynamic heat death. However, the cyclic model evades this by having a net expansion each cycle, preventing entropy from building up. However, there are major problems with the model. Foremost among them is that colliding branes are not understood by string theorists, and nobody knows if the scale invariant spectrum will be destroyed by the big crunch, or even what happens when two branes collide. Moreover, like cosmic inflation, while the general character of the forces (in the ekpyrotic scenario, a force between branes) required to create the vacuum fluctuations is known, there is no candidate from particle physics. Moreover, the scenario uses some essential ideas from string theory, principally extra dimensions, branes and orbifolds. String theory itself is a controversial idea in physics.

Originally, ekpyrotic models described two branes separated along a fifth dimension which collide once. Crucially, both the ekpyrotic and cyclic models create the fluctuations we observe today in a contracting "ekpyrotic" phase. However, in the ekpyrotic model, while a future collision with a different brane could conceivably happen in the future, ending our epoch in a conflagration, this happens randomly, not periodically. There were problems with the old ekpyrotic picture having to do with the very special, nearly supersymmetric initial state required in order to end up with a nearly homogeneous universe: the problems solved by cosmic inflation, such as the monopole, flatness and homogeneity problems were shifted to a set of fine-tuned initial conditions. The ekpyrotic picture was not connected to the issue of dark energy.

There are other technical differences having to do with the nature of the branes. For example, in the ekpyrotic model, they are D-branes; while in the cyclic model, they are orbifold planes.

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/c/cy/cyclic_model.htm

 

[KarlMarx]

Yes, I was just looking that up to confirm what I remembered from school and I came across that very same equation for the Gravitational Force Relative Strength.

It was a few years ago....I'll have to try and figure out exactly what it is I am thinking.

I should get a life..... the last time I sat in a physics class, most USMB board members were either in diapers or just a glint in their parents' eye....

why I remember such things for years but can't remember the name of someone I met a half hour ago is beyond me!