I don't care about the rattling of cages. It's more important that there is finally a decent stream of interesting, plausible, evidence-based cosmology as opposed to the cosmic tragedy which has been consuming many potential minds into what has amounted to a blindly following, meandering mainstream cult that is determined to unendingly, wildly bandage an ancient theory that attempts to wind time back to near 0.
I think the filament simply constricts until the flow (electric) forces the plasma to interact. Then, the resulting interaction causes a radiative release (magnetic field) that disperses small amounts of plasma that further interrupts the overall flow. The density now drags the incoming plasma slowing it and forcing more interaction and creating more magnetic field. The magnetic field fills with plasma stolen from the plasma flow making the field more dense until it becomes matter and stars and planets form. The temperature and density of the matter determines if it can convert energy to matter. If it resists its plasma flow too much, it cools and becomes a planet, if it conducts a flow, it becomes a gas giant and then a star.
Great explanation. I feel like the Christmas tree is the perfect metaphor for our universe in the context of your plasma theory. The trunk and branches of the tree are channels of plasma carrying with them the young evolving galaxies, and the balls and lights are galaxies/stars/planets that evolved and slowed down, on the rim of the universe
So (lacking an initial "bang") if we run the clock back 10 trillion years, what initial state do we find? Is it a completely uniform "empty" space where interaction of virtual particles very slowly adds irregularity, and eventually coalesces into structures?
@@pulseaimed Always is a tricky term there. Massless particles don't experience time, so if you watch the movie of the universe in reverse, it could go on for 10 trillion years, but it would end (begin) at that instant where the last (first) particle with mass disappears (appears).
If dynamic viscosity were real then wouldn't the bullet cluster event not has occurred? Wouldn't the normal matter have prevented the dark matter of the event from passing through the collision?
I think we need even more pressure to counter the Big Bang Theorists, some of whom have a doctor's degrees. No, I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory of creation of the Universe, but I am not offering a professional Cosmologist's opinion. Despite this Eric Lerner's lectures seem a convincing proof to reinforce our belief that there was really no Big Bang which would have created the Whole Universe from an infinitesimal point of almost infinitely condensed Energy.
Explanation of both initial anisotropies (though in a trillions years scenario), and what keeps galaxies together in spite of their angular momentum (or just of what is causing different velocities of plasma and stars in a galaxies?). I hope all this is supported by calculations, and that magneticism here is not "Deus ex machina" just like dark matter.
Univ of Calif Professor pointed out large scale structures formed when Universe was much much smaller than it is now. What makes the Universe expand then if Big Bang never happened?
If there was no big bang then the universe was never smaller to begin with. The red shift they claim is telling us the direction of movement is in fact explained by simpler means like the ionize hydrogen between us and the stars we are observing. No scientist will deny the existence of the ionize hydrogen but when you bring up the fact that ionized hydrogen will filter out the blue and higher light leaving the very red at the same frequencies they claim shows the universe is expanding they get all upset at you and call you a denier. Whatever that means 🙄
@@adeeperbluegreen Not a physicist here, but a mechanical engineer with an astronomy interest: Aren’t we ignoring multiple spectrum astronomy (light, radio waves, gravitational waves, etc.) not included in the ionized hydrogen red shifting light theory? All those modes of astronomy red shift. What say you? Note: Astronomy and cosmology is a lot more theoretical than rocket science! 😂
@@Eweyouhew actually, turns out the little dark theory people have bigger problems than little ol me losing faith in their stupid fairytales; www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-get-their-wish-and-the-hubble-crisis-gets-worse-20201217/
I though the rotation curves were obtained by spectroscopy on the light of the stars. So he seems to say that actually, the amount of emission of light is dominated by the surrounding plasma ? And they were measuring the plasma velocity instead of the stars velocity ? Is it what he says ? I find it hard to believe, because, the Hubble telescope can resolve the stars in andromeda and should be able to make a spectra.
The observations are made in difference wavelengths--radio, not optical. The radio waves from the plasma can be observed much further from the center of galaxies than can light from stars.
From my understanding of Alfvens work and plasma cosmology as a whole, it is assumed infinite existence of the universe. Even if it is not infinite, it is beyond the ability for humans to understand so the focus should not be on that question, but instead on understanding what we can understand.
It means a universe without the need for an absolute begin (of time). It could mean that time evolves like a moving point on an infinite time line without begin or end, or a finite time line which loops in a circle, and thus needs neither a begin or end. If the duration of the recurrence of this time loop is large enough the question as to wether time itself is finite or infinite becomes mood, since there would be no way of knowing that.
@@JimmyTulip1 there must be a starting point, like Aristotle's prime mover, so we avoid infinite regress. Maybe the ions that make up the plasma filaments spontaneously emerge like with virtual particles and quantum foam
Do modern cosmologists simply leave out electromagnetic forces in their calculations, merely assuming they are negligible compared to gravitational forces? Frankly, that seems rather dumb, so I'd love to see the competing calculations.... which would likely require a bit more education on my part. lol
Not too dumb as on large enough scales electric charge add up to neglectable approx. zero amount of charge, while gravitational influence keeps building up at larger scales.
I don't want to comment on your alternative scenario of the evolution of the cosmos, but just want to comment on only one statement, namely the statement that "The Big bang never happened". Any cosmological model is only capable of describing a model of evolution of the cosmos on the largest scale, but not equipped with explaining an "ultimate origin" (implicating a "begin of time"also) of the universe, as such could never have happened. To see the big bang as an event (an event of ultimate cosmic origin) is of course a category error, since the content of the big bang theory as such simply evades that question altogether due to the limits of the underlying physical theories which do not allow us to probe back earlier then lets say a fraction of a second after the imaginary point T=0, although in the popular belief about what the big bang is thought of, it is often thought of a theory of uiltimate origin, which it can not be. All that the big bang theory can describe is how the universe evolved since an initial state of a hot dense plasma, many magnitued smaller then the current observable universe. How that initital state came to be, the big bang theory itself simply does not answer, and the ad hoc hypotheses of cosmic inflation, although allowing to push back the issue of "ultimate origin" of the universe back as far back in time as we want (since supposedly inflation is future eternal but not past eternal but the moment in which our universe condensed out of the inflationary spacetime can be assumed to have taken an arbitrary large amount of time since inflation started) and also cosmic inflation has no "ultimate origin" at its disposal, so is only a theoretical extention of the big bang model itself. The inflationary model still survives, but has its critiques, since the most simple models of inflaton do no longer fit, and there is no candidate found yet for the inflationary field/particle (called the inflation) so it's existence is likewsie as obscure as the existence of Dark matter and Dark energy. So it build upon mystery after mystery, and most likely in the end will fail. We can only hope that new scientific theories get a change to be developed that brings about a radical new perspective on this, and can get rid of any or all of these hypothetical and mystifying forms of matter/energy, and sticks to the ingredients of physical reality that we can realy observe and examine. If such theories can really be developed and are in line with current and new made cosmic observations, and adresses all outstanding cosmological issues and is sufficently internally logically consistent and in agreement with data, is of course to be seen.
A problem inherent to the subject of studying the cosmos as a whole, and which is in an important aspect different as in (almost) any other field of scientific study, is that you can not study and observe it as an outside external observer, since clearly you yourself is part of the subject you study, and the cosmos as a whole does not and can not have anything outside of itself let alone a conscious observer. Most of the graphical visualisations of how the "big bang" supposedly happened, all get it wrong, because it is depicted from the point of view of an outside observer, which sees in some patch of space an outburst of energy and light happening, and such an observational point of view can of course not exist at all. Althougn the visualisation is not part of the theory, it is nevertheless a deceptive point to visualiize it that way.
It isn't even just pour quality sound... it's so terrible it sounds like they set up his chair and bookshelf inside a fully tiled, echoey bathroom, and one so large they had room for him to sit 10 meters away from the bathtub, and then they just sat the mic in the middle of the bathtub. It sounds so fucking horrible that I confidently believe they didn't just try this set up once in order to make this excruciatingly painful to endure, but they actually tried a dozen different set ups just so they could pick the shittiest one they manage.
You need a simple brain to realize , that from big bang first you would get planets for they are smaller , then you would get stars , but its just so funny , its a joke . I dare anyone to make anything with explosion .
Most logical and captivating video Ive seen in a long time. Certainly rattling a few cages as well. Excellent! Thank you.
I don't care about the rattling of cages. It's more important that there is finally a decent stream of interesting, plausible, evidence-based cosmology as opposed to the cosmic tragedy which has been consuming many potential minds into what has amounted to a blindly following, meandering mainstream cult that is determined to unendingly, wildly bandage an ancient theory that attempts to wind time back to near 0.
Always a delight. I love science. Seems all the rest of this world wants fairytales and unicorn rainbow farts. Thank you for knowledge!
I like this explanation. I'm still missing the gravitational lensing attributed to dark matter, though. I'd love to see that debunked as well.
I think the filament simply constricts until the flow (electric) forces the plasma to interact. Then, the resulting interaction causes a radiative release (magnetic field) that disperses small amounts of plasma that further interrupts the overall flow. The density now drags the incoming plasma slowing it and forcing more interaction and creating more magnetic field. The magnetic field fills with plasma stolen from the plasma flow making the field more dense until it becomes matter and stars and planets form. The temperature and density of the matter determines if it can convert energy to matter. If it resists its plasma flow too much, it cools and becomes a planet, if it conducts a flow, it becomes a gas giant and then a star.
I was looking forward to episode number 7, not number 5 again...
Great video again. Makes so much sense.
People below complaining about the sound should get a life. Seriously?!
THE SOUND IS SO BAD EVEN MY WIFE'S LOVER COMPLAINED. AND HE IS NOT ONE TO GET FUSSY, LET ME TELL YOU.
A very good and clear explanation of the things discussed. Including the dark matter problem for modern cosmologists.
excellent series - really interesting - many thanks
If our solar system is being 'swept along' by a 'wind' of plasma does the orientation of our planet matter, is there a magnetic headwind so to speak?
Love your books and videos. Your microphone is not clear on some of these. Are there transcripts of this lecture series?
Great explanation. I feel like the Christmas tree is the perfect metaphor for our universe in the context of your plasma theory. The trunk and branches of the tree are channels of plasma carrying with them the young evolving galaxies, and the balls and lights are galaxies/stars/planets that evolved and slowed down, on the rim of the universe
Is there a fairy on top ?
So (lacking an initial "bang") if we run the clock back 10 trillion years, what initial state do we find? Is it a completely uniform "empty" space where interaction of virtual particles very slowly adds irregularity, and eventually coalesces into structures?
Or it has always been this way
@@pulseaimed Always is a tricky term there. Massless particles don't experience time, so if you watch the movie of the universe in reverse, it could go on for 10 trillion years, but it would end (begin) at that instant where the last (first) particle with mass disappears (appears).
You can not expect a real answer for that, same as we dont know what the universe looks like 10 trillion years from now.
17:27 I would love to see a calculation for this.
If no big bang, what about red shift as we look at galaxies further and further away.
If dynamic viscosity were real then wouldn't the bullet cluster event not has occurred? Wouldn't the normal matter have prevented the dark matter of the event from passing through the collision?
I think we need even more pressure to counter the Big Bang Theorists, some of whom have a doctor's degrees. No, I don't believe in the Big Bang Theory of creation of the Universe, but I am not offering a professional Cosmologist's opinion. Despite this Eric Lerner's lectures seem a convincing proof to reinforce our belief that there was really no Big Bang which would have created the Whole Universe from an infinitesimal point of almost infinitely condensed Energy.
The standard model of cosmology (lambda CDM model) is not a model of creation but only a model of evolution since an intital state of hot dense plasma
Explanation of both initial anisotropies (though in a trillions years scenario), and what keeps galaxies together in spite of their angular momentum (or just of what is causing different velocities of plasma and stars in a galaxies?).
I hope all this is supported by calculations, and that magneticism here is not "Deus ex machina" just like dark matter.
Univ of Calif Professor pointed out large scale structures formed when Universe was much much smaller than it is now. What makes the Universe expand then if Big Bang never happened?
If there was no big bang then the universe was never smaller to begin with. The red shift they claim is telling us the direction of movement is in fact explained by simpler means like the ionize hydrogen between us and the stars we are observing. No scientist will deny the existence of the ionize hydrogen but when you bring up the fact that ionized hydrogen will filter out the blue and higher light leaving the very red at the same frequencies they claim shows the universe is expanding they get all upset at you and call you a denier. Whatever that means 🙄
@@adeeperbluegreen Not a physicist here, but a mechanical engineer with an astronomy interest: Aren’t we ignoring multiple spectrum astronomy (light, radio waves, gravitational waves, etc.) not included in the ionized hydrogen red shifting light theory? All those modes of astronomy red shift. What say you? Note: Astronomy and cosmology is a lot more theoretical than rocket science! 😂
@@Eweyouhew actually, turns out the little dark theory people have bigger problems than little ol me losing faith in their stupid fairytales; www.quantamagazine.org/astronomers-get-their-wish-and-the-hubble-crisis-gets-worse-20201217/
I though the rotation curves were obtained by spectroscopy on the light of the stars. So he seems to say that actually, the amount of emission of light is dominated by the surrounding plasma ? And they were measuring the plasma velocity instead of the stars velocity ? Is it what he says ? I find it hard to believe, because, the Hubble telescope can resolve the stars in andromeda and should be able to make a spectra.
The observations are made in difference wavelengths--radio, not optical. The radio waves from the plasma can be observed much further from the center of galaxies than can light from stars.
The 21 cm line is of molecular hydrogen, what has this to do with plasma? If it were plasma it would show as the H\alpha line .
So does that mean that universe exists forever?
Also, what is the origin of the primordial plasma?
From my understanding of Alfvens work and plasma cosmology as a whole, it is assumed infinite existence of the universe. Even if it is not infinite, it is beyond the ability for humans to understand so the focus should not be on that question, but instead on understanding what we can understand.
It means a universe without the need for an absolute begin (of time). It could mean that time evolves like a moving point on an infinite time line without begin or end, or a finite time line which loops in a circle, and thus needs neither a begin or end. If the duration of the recurrence of this time loop is large enough the question as to wether time itself is finite or infinite becomes mood, since there would be no way of knowing that.
The universe of light. Thanks.
What is the origin of this primordial plasma?
@@JimmyTulip1 there must be a starting point, like Aristotle's prime mover, so we avoid infinite regress. Maybe the ions that make up the plasma filaments spontaneously emerge like with virtual particles and quantum foam
Do modern cosmologists simply leave out electromagnetic forces in their calculations, merely assuming they are negligible compared to gravitational forces? Frankly, that seems rather dumb, so I'd love to see the competing calculations.... which would likely require a bit more education on my part. lol
Not too dumb as on large enough scales electric charge add up to neglectable approx. zero amount of charge, while gravitational influence keeps building up at larger scales.
I like it 👍
So… why hasn’t all the hydrogen been used up over eons of fusion?
Should have chosen different ice skating move - skater rotating in place ...😎😎..
Seems as micro and macro cosmos is yet to be understood
I don't want to comment on your alternative scenario of the evolution of the cosmos, but just want to comment on only one statement, namely the statement that "The Big bang never happened". Any cosmological model is only capable of describing a model of evolution of the cosmos on the largest scale, but not equipped with explaining an "ultimate origin" (implicating a "begin of time"also) of the universe, as such could never have happened. To see the big bang as an event (an event of ultimate cosmic origin) is of course a category error, since the content of the big bang theory as such simply evades that question altogether due to the limits of the underlying physical theories which do not allow us to probe back earlier then lets say a fraction of a second after the imaginary point T=0, although in the popular belief about what the big bang is thought of, it is often thought of a theory of uiltimate origin, which it can not be. All that the big bang theory can describe is how the universe evolved since an initial state of a hot dense plasma, many magnitued smaller then the current observable universe. How that initital state came to be, the big bang theory itself simply does not answer, and the ad hoc hypotheses of cosmic inflation, although allowing to push back the issue of "ultimate origin" of the universe back as far back in time as we want (since supposedly inflation is future eternal but not past eternal but the moment in which our universe condensed out of the inflationary spacetime can be assumed to have taken an arbitrary large amount of time since inflation started) and also cosmic inflation has no "ultimate origin" at its disposal, so is only a theoretical extention of the big bang model itself. The inflationary model still survives, but has its critiques, since the most simple models of inflaton do no longer fit, and there is no candidate found yet for the inflationary field/particle (called the inflation) so it's existence is likewsie as obscure as the existence of Dark matter and Dark energy. So it build upon mystery after mystery, and most likely in the end will fail. We can only hope that new scientific theories get a change to be developed that brings about a radical new perspective on this, and can get rid of any or all of these hypothetical and mystifying forms of matter/energy, and sticks to the ingredients of physical reality that we can realy observe and examine. If such theories can really be developed and are in line with current and new made cosmic observations, and adresses all outstanding cosmological issues and is sufficently internally logically consistent and in agreement with data, is of course to be seen.
A problem inherent to the subject of studying the cosmos as a whole, and which is in an important aspect different as in (almost) any other field of scientific study, is that you can not study and observe it as an outside external observer, since clearly you yourself is part of the subject you study, and the cosmos as a whole does not and can not have anything outside of itself let alone a conscious observer. Most of the graphical visualisations of how the "big bang" supposedly happened, all get it wrong, because it is depicted from the point of view of an outside observer, which sees in some patch of space an outburst of energy and light happening, and such an observational point of view can of course not exist at all. Althougn the visualisation is not part of the theory, it is nevertheless a deceptive point to visualiize it that way.
All that science knowledge but he cant get decent sound!!!
It isn't even just pour quality sound... it's so terrible it sounds like they set up his chair and bookshelf inside a fully tiled, echoey bathroom, and one so large they had room for him to sit 10 meters away from the bathtub, and then they just sat the mic in the middle of the bathtub.
It sounds so fucking horrible that I confidently believe they didn't just try this set up once in order to make this excruciatingly painful to endure, but they actually tried a dozen different set ups just so they could pick the shittiest one they manage.
If this audio was any worse I wouldn't have bothered to pause the video, i would have just immediately killed myself instead
Plasma interference, supposedly...
Rad. Get a mic👌🏽
You need a simple brain to realize , that from big bang first you would get planets for they are smaller , then you would get stars , but its just so funny , its a joke . I dare anyone to make anything with explosion .