ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.พ. 2025
- To support our research in fusion and cosmology: contribute/subscribe here: www.lppfusion.... or invest here www.lppfusion....
The Big Bang hypothesis is falling apart, washed away by the flood of data from JWST and other telescopes. Its predictions are contradicted by over a dozen separate data sets. But if the Big Bang never happened, what did? In this new video series, Cosmic Evolution, LPPFusion Chief Scientist Eric Lerner describes the real story of the history of the universe, starting as far back as we can now see. This is a history based on real observations and on physics theories that scientists have developed and tested in the laboratory and that underlie our whole technology. Understanding the processes that generated the awesome cosmos that we now see helps us to harness these processes here on earth-especially to develop cheap, clean, safe and unlimited fusion energy.
In Episode 1, “If the Big Bang Never Happened, What Did?” Lerner describes the basic scientific methods that must be used to replace myths with real knowledge of cosmic evolution, He then describes the earliest phase of evolution that we have evidence for, the formation of giant filaments of plasma billions of light years across, held together by huge currents and magnetic forces. These filaments, formed over trillions of years, gave rise to the largest structures we now see, like the recently discovered Big Ring and Big Arc. (See our Big Ring video here: • The Big Ring Bashes th... )
LPPFusion’s researchers are not backed by any billionaires. Our work both in fusion energy in astrophysics is funded by a couple of thousand small investors. Unfortunately, that’s just not enough. We need at least another million dollars a year to help us hire the people we need for maximum speed.
There are 12,000 people subscribed to our TH-cam channel. If each of you subscribers became a donor to LPPFusion at just $10 per month-three dimes a day- or invested just $100 per year--we would be raising another 1.2 million dollars per year. Invest here: wefunder.com/l... or contribute here: www.lppfusion....
Our technology can slash the cost of energy by 90%, and provide a clean, safe environment, no greenhouse gases or pollution and decentralized energy. A better future for all of us.
A technical paper on formation of large scale structure (not yet peer-reviewed): Observations of Large-Scale Structures Contradict the Predictions of the Big Bang Hypothesis But Confirm Plasma Theory, Eric J Lerner, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26141.79844 (2022)
Peer reviewed paper :Magnetic Vortex Filaments, Universal Invariants and the Fundamental Constants , E.J. Lerner IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, Special Issue on Cosmic Plasma, PS-14, 690 (1986) www.researchga...
Some more background on why what I am describing in the video has some credibility.
wefunder.com/u...
My predictions have been confirmed by experiment and observation-the ONLY test of scientific validity-and checked by my peers. I published in 1985 a detailed quantitative model (www.cambridge....) relating quasars and the dense plasma focus device Nardi and Bostick were working on.
This model led eventually to LPPFusion's work on the same device. While it took a bit to raise the money to test this model, in 2012 we published results in Physics of Plasmas, (pubs.aip.org/a..., the leading journal in the field, showing that, based on this model, we had achieved the highest confined ion energy yet reported. This caused quite stir among our colleagues and this paper was the most read of any published by the journal that year. Today, the research service Altmetric ranks our paper’s “Attention Score” among the top 3% of all papers of similar age, so our work was not exactly ignored by our peers.
We topped our own record in a 2017 paper in the same journal. Last year we claimed in a peer-reviewed paper( link.springer.... the highest confined ion energies of any fusion experiment ( 200 keV) as well as, recently, the lowest impurities of any fusion plasma. Among privately-funded fusion efforts, our experiments have achieved the highest ratio of fusion energy generation to device energy input (wall-plug efficiency) and the highest nτT product of 3.4 × 10^20 keV-s/m^3” The reviewers for this special issue on privately-funded fusion research were chosen from among our competitors. So, in short, our elaborations of Alfven’s theories have led to advances in technology, the ultimate test of scientific validity. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
"Perhaps like me you grew up with the notion that the whole of the matter in the universe was created in one Big Bang at a particular time in the remote past. What I'm now going to tell you is that this is wrong." ~Fred Hoyle, 1950
And it turned out that Hoyle was the one that was wrong. Which is why nobody has bothered with steady-state models for a long time.
Hoyle obviously didn't grow up with the notion of the Big Bang. And frankly, the guy in this video looks old enough that I don't really think he did either. I'm old enough that I remember hearing about the big bang and steady state models as two competing theories discussed at the Hayden Planetarium, with the show's narrator not taking sides. I thought steady-state made more sense. Perhaps it will make a comeback.
@@bxdanny Zero chance of a comeback. It was dumped by pretty much all of its adherents decades ago. The CMB saw to that. More chance of flat earth being found to be correct.
@@ianw7898
But how do you know that Hoyle was wrong? There is more than one possible interpretation of the red shift.
@@sliglusamelius8578 Because Hoyle could never explain the CMB. And there are no other scientifically valid explanations for cosmological redshift. Like I said - steady-state has been dead for decades. For good reason.
The big bang fell apart and was completely destroyed last century in the 1990s. It's unfortunate that it still lingers in some bizarre forms.
nonsense ♾
Yeah, right. When pretty much the last few supporters of steady-state models were confronted with the COBE data, and finally jumped ship. Learn science, and then learn the history of it. Most had jumped ship before COBE. Nothing since COBE has helped the crackpots who still held to SS models. Quite the opposite. Deal with evidence. Word salad is for crackpots. Like Lerner.
@@gringo1723 Please explain why it's nonsense.
sextillion Amps? We're gonna need a bigger voltmeter
lol
Amp meter
1.21 jiggawatts of current!
@zardoz7900 for reals? I thought electric potential was measured in cubic leprechauns. Karens are everywhere.
That's what she said.
Can't wait for the second episode! Absolutely brain tingling...
The universe is infinite in space and time and evolves with no begining and no end.
No expansion, no CMBR, no Red Shift, no Dark Matter, no Dark Energy.
@@fivish
Nice hypothesis, Albert. Next time show your work. D minus.
Exact Bro. The universe is Eternal.
@@TezcatlipocaismoOficial
Why are stars burning out?
My friends and I are very impressed by your work. If good vibes mean anything, and I think they do, then expect some right away!
How the universe came into existence will never be understood
We should be asking a different question - did the universe have a beginning? In my view, no!
There must have always been something as nothing can not beget something. The problem may have to do with the nonexistence of time.
Existential fallacy. You assume it came into what? No. If anything the universe came out of something, which I guess would be vacuum? Who knows.
That's one theory vacuum expands building vacuum energy until, perhaps a big bang. Perhaps it's more like effervescent, like CO2 bubbles appearing in a opened soda.
Gotta dream bigger. The Earth use to have an edge you could fall off of.
The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning. Galaxies and life just come and go in this eternally existent existence.
The universe is pretty much as it has been for ever and will for ever be.
Entropy can only decrease in a closed system.
Entropy can only increase in a closed system as well.
Because for entropy to increase decrease the has to have been a disturbance of the system that initially reduced the entropy.
A system in thermal equilibrium can't increase in entropy.
So for entropy to change there has to be an initial disturbance of the entropy of the system.
What the laws of thermodynamics talks about are not truly closed systems.
They talk about systems that can be approximated as closed in the spatial dimensions, but not in the time dimension.
Thermodynamics was mainly developed by engineers, for the sake of serving the industrial revolution.
There is only one truly closed system and that is the universe per definition.
Because the universe is per definition everything.
There is nothing else but the universe.
There is no outside force to the universe.
So there is no way for the thermal equilibrium to be disturbed.
The universe contains a structure that can't collapse on it self nor can it expand beyond it self.
This structure is one of electrical currents.
3:58 the desk jockeys are only proving possibilities and showing off…. Impressive mathletes! 😂
Good video ... but the audio volume keeps fluctuating between left and right earphones making it annoying to listen.
i clicked the "mono audio" button in windows audio. don't forget to turn it off when you're done.
Perhaps I may adjust your pillow sir?
He's a more competent audio technologist than he is a scientist. He makes a total garbage statement in the first 30 seconds -- it's his opinion as an individual with no physics or mathematical degrees or experience. Great, he doesn't think the Big Bang happened and he's welcome to feel that way but his feelings mean nothing to scientists without backing evidence -- something other than an apparent schizophrenic messiah delusion that he has the solution to the worlds energy needs if someone could just give him $10.
@@craigf2696 nailed! in a previous Life were You known as JEEVES? 😎
@@gringo1723 Or Hobson..
Hahaha!
Probably Hobson, he was quite adept with the veiled insult.
New Timescapes theory helps Eric’s case that the big bang didn’t happen by dismissing dark energy and universe expansion.
Nothing happened. The Universe has always been here and will always be here. The big bang is the most stupid theory I have ever heard of.
What's it *for* then?
@@vapormissile For stupid people like you to ask questions.
If something was eternally motionless, it cannot suddenly begin to move. In other words there is no motionless engine behind motion, motion always existed and will always exist, it is eternal in the past and in the future. The space where matter moves always existed as well. The rest is ideology.
If the universe has always been here then where did space and time come from for it to fit in?
@@SgtHenick What?
Yeah, but modern cosmologists have a death grip on the Standard Model, and they ain't giving it up easily. Thomas Kuhn explained why over 50 years ago.
Did T.K. touch on the fact that the control structure is dependent upon fear of death?
Exactly, they don´t give up with the fairy tale of big bang and singularity! 🤣
@@craigf2696 Nah, though that's a consequence, of course. With all the $$ going into the Standard Model - colliders, fusion, etc., you gotta kowtow to DC, which means you gotta go along with the regime.
Seems Your LIVING IN THE PAST, Jollied...
Sounds like the usual science-free word salad typical of crackpots and cranks everywhere. Want to deal with the evidence for the standard model? Yep, thought not. Stick to the day job.
When I was a junior in high school I was intensly interested in astronomy and math. I went over the math about the expanding universe and the big bang. My algebra 2 teacher shook his head but got me some the books I needed to try to understand the problem. The next year he helped write up a paper to send to a couple of professors. Never heard from them. But the discrepencies in the prevailing theories were to me obvious. Just selecting the estimated distances a little differently pushed the time of the big bang to almost double the time. As far as I was concerned a steady state might be still considered.
You really have to think about this historically. In a century or even less, this era of the past 120 years or so will be looked at as an era of increasing desperate dogma and priesthood formation amongst physicists. This includes both quantum mechanics and cosmology, I see the official science on this no different than the claims made by the priesthood in the feudal era.
possible... possible.... Hopefully the future holds fewer Marxists.... ♾
Read: "Not even trying" by Bruce Charlton.
He gives some insight into the process of the corruption of science.
@@janhemmer8181 Bedankt, Jan! Googled and found a 30 page review; savvy insights!
Further researched to find(unsurprisingly) a large selection of Science commentary. Now You've done it! I'll be ordering and scanning books for WEEKS!.
Grateful for the tip! One of the most enjoyable aspects of Social Networking chats is the occasional gift of information both intriguing as well as USEFUL!
As last; curiosity moves me to inquire Dutch or Belg.? ♾
@@janhemmer8181 Thanks for the reading tip!
@@williamnelson4968 you are welcome!
I for my part got the tip from Scott Locklin.
Also a blog worth reading.
How is the fusion project coming along by the way ?
I wish I could see some of your papers on it…
It's not
There is also Aureon energy (formally Saffire), now based in California.
FAT CHANCE... ♾
all online--visit us at lppfusion.com www.lppfusion.com/peer-reviewed-papers/ Also check out news
@@daviddrew7852 _"There is also Aureon energy (formally Saffire), now based in California."_
Which is a scam. And I think you'll find it was spelled 'safire'. Allegedly testing a scientifically impossible 'model' of the Sun, and accidentally discovered transmutation of elements! Lol! Zero evidence. No papers. No mechanism. No science. And, according to their own plasma physicist (with whom I corresponded), making 'fraudulent claims'. This would be Nobel Prize level stuff. So, what do they do? Publish nothing, and go on youtube with a begging bowl! Hoping (realistically) that there will be enough scientifically challenged rubes out there to send them money. It is/ was a scam. A very transparent scam. Funded by the 'Electric Universe' mythologists. I assume they did this in hope of a return from the poor rubes they were/ are conning.
Imagine how Eric feels? I have no opinion on his fusion research, although I have seen severe criticism of his claims. It is not my area of interest. However, here he is, with ~ 13 K subscribers, having to beg for money at the end of his woo videos, when the safire scammers were in receipt of ~ $5m from a Velikovskian charity! And are now trying to leverage more out of the scientifically illiterate public that they are lying to!
The whole 'safire' woo was a scam from start to finish. And trust me - it has finished. You will see nothing more from them. No papers. No return on 'investment' if you were silly enough to make such an 'investment'.
It is pure woo, and simply shows how a fool is easily parted from his money, as a reputable scientist commented about the scammer Randell Mills' claims of hydrinos. Or the rubbish we see from the convicted criminal Andrea Rossi.
Let me make this clear - I am not putting Eric Lerner in the same category as Mills, Safire or Rossi. I am not accusing him of deception or scammery. I am more than happy to accuse the aforementioned (sans Lerner) as unscrupulous scammers, though.
Eric's problem is that he really doesn't understand plasma physics worth a damn. My problem with him is his ridiculous claims re cosmology and astrophysics. I could not care less about his fusion 'research'. It is incidental.
I think the most simple explanation is that everything is the product of evolution, including matter and its particles
Very good elucidation on the matter, the Darkseid analogy is brilliant; Darkseid still searching for the "anti-life" equation, while the mainstream still looking for the "theory of everything" equation; both are fiction.
Says who
Do you have a Playlist on the debunking of the big bang?
these stories remind me of the old saying, take life with a pinch of salt. endless stories after stories. and they all still get funded like crazy dont they.
Just subscribed! Great video Dr. Lerner
Thanks for keeping the torch lit on plasma cosmology. It honestly feel good to be vindicated in many senses from JWST, not that it was needed really. (exuser 'ionized' from wikipedia back in the early 2000s.)
Nothing observed by JWST has vindicated anything in the long since debunked plasma cosmology nonsense.
Hans Alfven was right.
No, he was well wrong. Which is why nobody has bothered with plasma cosmology since...... it was invented.
@@ianw7898 Lots of people are "doing" plasma cosmology. Just not the people that believe in the Big Bang.
@@FractalWoman And who would they be? Got any papers from the last 25 years? It was stillborn. Nobody bothers with it. Hardly anyone ever did.
QUESTION: If vacuum energy has significant energy, then over large scales and distances, would this not act as a uniform Universe mass that would curve spacetime time and redden the light of distant galaxies? Surely this accelerated reference frame of effectively gravitational curvature would cause the reddening of distance objects and have a dilated Time component that would be behave equivalently to an accelerating Universe model big bang model. With curved Time we may not even need a big bang.
You might want to write that up and send it to a respectable journal. Given that nobody familiar with physics has suggested such a thing, however, you may want to rethink it first.
Great job sir. Thank you
By keeping my revolution in physics (my discovery and my law) secret, criminals have caused immeasurable harm to humanity. Which has already cost thousands of billions of dollars worldwide in 29 years for even better weapon systems. And don't forget the many human sacrifices. Discoverer extraterrestrial on January 17, 1995 Johann Zdebor - Donald Trump said that no one has done as much for the church as he has. And I say, no one has done more for humanity than me. End
FYI your audio isn't balanced and keeps switching between favoring left and right.
Hi Eric. I have a question for you. 9 minutes in, you say the structures were 7 trillion years to form. Can you elaborate on how to calculate that ?
I did in briefly in the video. An object needs at least one rotation to form, roughly--and we are talking roughly here. So if the Giant Arc is 5 billion light years in radius, it is two pi or 30 billion light years in circumference. Since galaxies rarely travel faster than about 1,000 km per sec, which is 1/300th the speed of light, the time to form the object fully is around 300X30 billion or 9 trillion years. So I said "at lest 7 or 8 trillion years" to be a bit conservative. These humongous objects may still be slowly contracting, but other evolutionary processes we'll discuss in the next episode have moved far faster.
@@LPPFusion Thanks for the reply. I was not aware that the structures could be that huge. Rotation speed of galaxies I would assume to be difficult to measure precisely. And knowing a little more about why the structures would need one rotation amount of time to form would also help. Keep up the good work.
He picked a number at random that nobody else has even mentioned.
@@kasperlindvig3215speeds are measured by the spread in redshifts. Doppler shifts are independent of Hubble redshifts
Maxwell is the greatest scientist of all time without him we would not have electricity computers and many other things.
Maxwell believed in the Aether and required it to unify the equations, we have thrown out the baby.
I have seen others who say ... "That Galaxy Shouldn't be There !!!" "That Black Hole is too big ... It must have formed faster !!!" Hilarious !!!
You mean the guy who wont say current or filaments. Instead he uses words like cosmic rope, magnetic rivers. Because he's talking about the same thing, but wants to make it appear as if he debunked it, to appease his sponsors.
@@michaelstiller2282 What currents?
@@ianw7898 Find a video called "Huge Magnetic Tunnel Seems To Surround The Solar System" Anton Petrov When your done, what system are you aware of that creates such a structure.
@@ianw7898 the ones he talks about.
@@michaelstiller2282 Which don't exist. Filament does not = current. Wee see filaments in star forming molecular clouds! They are neutral gas, and very cold. There are currents in all sorts of places, and real plasma physicists are well aware of where they are. They don't need youtube amateurs to do their jobs for them.
Interesting. I'm open minded to this hypothesis. Does this mean we can accelerate particles in space for propulsion using plasmas, or does conservation of energy prevent this?
Our project actually got its first funding from NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab for space propulsion. We could get to Mars in two weeks. If you accelerate a beam out the rear end of the spacecraft, conservation of momentum says you push the spacecraft forward.
I excitedly anticipate the next video in this series. Finally, a replacement theory.
Lerner has no 'replacement theory'.
What we know is our universe is not only gravitational but électromagnétique as well which makes the picture much more complex
Much more electromagnetic than gravitational because gravity is far weaker
@@TrusePkay but longer distances
@@oliveirlegume3725 lol. If electricity and magnetism are stronger. They should travel much further than gravity.
Check out the Ampere-Gauss equation Fe = (K•q1•q2)/r^2 and Newton's gravity law Fg = (G•m1•m2)/r^2
@@oliveirlegume3725 what weakens electromagnetic forces is resistance in between. But gravity cannot be weakened or shielded.
@@TrusePkay True. But in terms of huge distances gravitation dominates. What I was really talking of is red shift is measured to be also due to photon charge interaction. In lab an électron. And this changes the distance picture a lot. But for now we do not know how many charges there so we do not have numbers. I am sure someone will be smart enough to figure. What we suspect is dark matter might not exist
"The extraordinary thing is that scientists accept the Big Bang and in the same breath deride the Creationists."
Wallace Thornhill
Cognitive dissonance anyone???
irrelevent
Wallace the absolute legend. What a hero
The two things are unrelated
Creationists are fools
But what is gravitation?😮
....fundamentally the fact that we exist at all precludes a creation event as well as universal heat death. The hypothesis is that no mater the length of the life span proposed when placed along side infinite time it shrinks to effectively zero precluding existence in any form an obviously false premise.
our understanding of entropy is biased due to the human experience it is an observers issue not physics we see decay all around us BUT only in complex systems the universe is the inverse of complexity it is chaotic , meaning that it naturally arises due to its own internal rules like a Mandelbrot set but it is electrons and protons interacting iteratively across time rendering the universe in to existence.
"No matter or energy is created or destroyed!"
"Also, the Big Bang created everything somehow!"
Has anyone here checked out the Safire Project or Sky Scholar?
Yes
The latest I've heard from Monty and company, is that they have moved operations from the machine shop to Monty's Pvt. property in Canada. The information is about 4 to 6 months ago.
Two thumbs up for Sky Scholar, they really get down to the nitty gritty of the science!
The friendly Canadian guy 👦
Safire is/ was a scam. Sky Scholar is a creationist nutter.
The tired light hypothesis does not seem to account for Time dilation. If we had a hypothesis with a accelerated reference frame instead such as one with a curved universe that would take into account effects on light and Time, would this pass the Toleman test?
'Tired light' is woo. It does not even count as a scientific hypothesis.
انت باشا ❤
تحية لك يامعلم من السعودية
Wow! You are an excellent teacher. You communicated the information logically and clearly. The graphics help. I am a retired elementary school teacher, who is now enjoying learning about astronomy. Thanks.
Theorists reconstruct the past of the cosmos and predict its future using the standard model, which is largely based on general relativity. Einstein's theory describes the interaction between matter and space-time. But Einstein's calculations involve 10 interconnected equations and 20 variables, a system too complicated to solve. Cosmologists limit themselves to a universe that functions as a smooth and symmetrical fluid. By ignoring bumps of matter such as clusters of galaxies and allowing the universe to expand similarly along all three axes, the cosmological principle removes parts of the equations and links only a few variables, greatly simplifying the system of equations. This method can lead to misunderstood, much too large galaxies of which we have yet to see whether they can be older than the universe itself.
They do indeed, but Einsteinian-GR is a total nonsense. We are back in the Dark ages inventing invisible magic stuff and forces.
@@SamMackrill Nonsense. Show where Einstein was wrong. Word salad and gibberish don't cut it.
@@davejones7632 Truly a true fool
Don't stars burn out (go supernova or become black holes) after a while, thus limiting the age of the universe?
My feeling has always been that "SOMETHING" happened , some major event of some sort. Seems there is enough evidence to support that.
But to extrapolate and say that such an event began with nothing and was the start of everything , I think is just plain silly.
_"such an event began with nothing"_
Lol! Which is not what big bang theory says. It is just what silly people who don't understand it claim that it says. Learn the subject before commenting on it. Lerner would be wise to take the same advice.
@@davejones7632 lol you idiot you still don't understand or do you have a brain problem? a hot ball condensed into the nqueen universe one thing you are crazy haha
Looking forward to an alternative explanation to the 'big bang' How the universe came into existence is one of those basic questions that there is no good explanation for.
The idea that the universe "came into existence" is a very human one. It's far more likely (I think) that it is infinite. The Big Bang is essentially a creationist theory, and is of some comfort to those who wish to retain the idea of an ultimately mystery. Interpreting the red shift and microwave background as the evidence for the BB was reasonable at a time when other evidence was not available. Any theory that cannot be falsified is no good, as is any theory that cannot make consistent predictions.
The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning. Galaxies and life just come and go in this eternally existent existence.
There is absolutely nothing that leads us to think that the universe came into being; this is a pseudoproblem and not a fundamental question. First of all, you should prove that the universe came into being.
stars are not thermonuclear bombs they are electric anodes
Not according to anyone familiar with physics.
You can not determine the age of the universe by the speed of processes as measured today, because you can’t know if the speed has been the same in the past.
For me the story of the big bang has always been an other example of anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism.
Man is born and man dies, but why should this apply to the universe?
In spite of the fact that we cannot grasp the notion of eternity and infinity - both of them exist.
Interesting. So if there exist structures that are trillions of years old, how long ago was it that the first particles began to appear?
It's unfortunately beyond any sort of rigorous science. It's unfalsifiable. Untestable. Unreproducible.
So it's safely forever in the realm of pure conjecture and shakey hypothesis's.
Maybe they've always existed.
@@trucid2 Always is a big number. At some point those particles drifted near enough to each other to form structures, all over the observable universe. This suggests there is a specific age.
There are also alleged black holes which are so massive they became black holes the second the first stars were born, and then bested inflation and sucked up more material than inflation was alleged to allow.
Eh. Okay. So perhaps 10^100 scattered neutrons suddenly appeared in a massive hypertorus, and then things happened for 100 trillion years, and here we are. That still puts an age of 100 trillion years on the universe.
I just had a thought about the moon being 400x smaller than the sun but 400x nearer, could the suns gravity determine that distance relationship? and would that prove anything about the relative density of the sun earth and moon?
It appears to be a nice coincidence. The moon moved away from the earth due to tidal forces( it still is but very slowly) and just landed at this distance. The moon and the tides it raises certainly had a big effect on biological evolution, bit I've never seen any analysis that the ratio of the solar and lunar distance has any special effect--other than beautiful solar eclipses.
@@LPPFusion Thanks for replying, the coincidence thing still bugs me. I checked the densities and distances, and there is no obvious correlation, but my maths is pretty bad..
@@LPPFusion I just remembered the speed of the moons orbit is critical here, and that is probably a random speed, so the 400x relationship would also be random, a coincidence.
@digbysirchickentf2315 it's still approximate, and only fits close to exactly during the period when the earth is furthest away from the sun (approx. Northern Hemisphere summer). During the other three seasons the moon is smaller and doesn't fit the sun's diameter to cover it fully in a proper full eclipse
@@realityisenough Yes
I am confused about our SUN. It has a continuous spectrum in visible light. My elementary school teacher put a prism in a sunbeam in the classroom and projected a rainbow on the wall. Yet, Hubble found the red shift in the spectrum of stars further away from us, interpreted as moving away. Hence the universe was expanding. If the SUN is a STAR and has no spectral lines, is the red shift from something besides stars? Or, is our SUN at least as weird as our MOON?
Stars, including our sun, have both continuous spectra as a background and bright and dark lines superimposed. The prism had too little resolution to show the narrow lines. The redshifts of distant galaxies are measured from the light of billions of their stars. The width of the lines shows the spread of redshifts with the galaxy.
Well put ! Bravo !
With Webb, so much data, too little time to absorb it all.
Lights, camera spooky action at a distance walked into a bar and came out atoms! 😂
Ohhhhhhh I get it now,, , had to think hard there for a second..... Clever..... I'm giving you a 7+ out of 10... For dad jokes,
Is it possible the objects were moving faster in the past and therefore the structures were formed in much less than trillions of years?
Dr. Lerner, your video screams to me that we need to go back and revisit Einstein’s final effort at a Unified Field Theory to unite General Relativity with Maxwell’s Field Equations and Electro Magnetism but this time incorporating Einstein’s original Cosmological Constant BEFORE he abandoned it on the false belief that the universe was expanding due to Hubble’s misunderstanding of the reason behind the apparent red shift.
Seems to me that you need to catch up on decades of observational evidence. And Lerner is not 'Dr.' anything. He has a BSc. That is all. Just another youtube talking head. He is less qualified than I am in the subject that he claims (falsely) to understand. Ever heard of flat earth? You'll get as much science out of them as you will out of this poseur.
It can only be understood in terms of pre-matter universal constants of which no scientist addresses and the big Q is: how did any particle decide it needed a coherent frequency transit of a wave before any came into existance?, therefore the wave is pre deterministic and a pre-matter universal constant and any matter apllication is not the question at whatever level of matter propagation in thermo terms whether bang- surge etc and any quesion of matter or its inception on its own is a meaningless point. The Q should be what event caused the wave and base sine function geometry. So all the calculations from Maxwell and Sheodignher =not one fundemental question about the nature of wave inception before matter. Laughable.
The better bet than fusion is Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors
I like both, focus fusion should be great for Ion drives and and space ships on the move, Thorium Molten Salt Reactor would be a great way to power and keep a habitat warm on a frozen planet. The one problem both of these reactors face is not being very cartel friendly which could explain the slow progress.
@Pax.Alotin
My understanding is mankind produces fusion reactions for 80 years now, the problem being frequency of reaction and low return's on energy investment in the fusion reaction. One of the things I like about Focus Fusion is you don't waste energy by having two extremely different temperatures fighting each other.
What did happen seems to have eluded our scientific expectations
Nice to see a real speaker and no computer voice! Thanks for the video Eric! 👍
I suspect that the big bang out of a singularity was confused with another explosive event from the inflationary period of our very early universe...
Our mystical and fantastic universe comes from another universe, its predecessor.
From one universe generation to the next, so to speak, the physical properties and reactions are passed on. We can observe this everywhere in nature, including among us humans. We are a small reflection of the cosmos, in which everything is connected and functions according to logical (material and spiritual) processes.
This means that our universe is constantly renewing itself after the end of its cycle of existence, which ends in a general collapse (dark, cold, matterless = big freeze / rip).
With our incredible advanced space telescopes we not only can detect and see cosmic structures from our universe but also from its predecessor (cluster, galaxies, stars).
I can't explain this renewal process to you physically; I don't know much about physics and chemistry, but I do know about philosophy. The universe can also be explained philosophically; I did my doctoral thesis on this topic many years ago.
So there are different ways to explain the universe, all roads lead to Rome... 😇😉
Would seem to recommend one to accept SPECULATION as reality? I suppose one can always become comfortable adopting an OPEN ENDED PHILOSOPHY which allows one to avoid dealing with Science... Neil deGrasse Tyson also (eventually) "did" a Doctoral thesis, he often explains reality with a bit of his personal philosophy... unfortunately, some often hold his convictions to be Bull Sh_t... tough Life being a Philosopher 👎
Thanks! Yeah it's awful about the AI voices--all massive theft! They start with real people earning a living from voice-overs and steal their voices. The whole industry needs to be forced to pay for everything it uses--then the whole thing will be unprofitable in the first place.
👍👍
It's been a while, keep the knowledge coming... 🤔
Magnetic fields describe the fractals that we see in the Cosmos with our telescopes :)
As above..... So below...
....just to note, the grammatical error in the youtube title needs addressing (typical of the youtube yahoos to screw that up).
thanks, one always slips through--corrected
@@LPPFusion ouch
@@gringo1723I THINK YOU STOP TROLL FUCK DOG BB
Figuring out how things work in vacuum of intense power with electromagnetism and gravity in a specific area is nearly impossible. In our Solar system we have Solar wind that keeps our system cleaned of cosmic dust, but the Sun emits Iron Oxide Ash and it is what the Sun throws at us and all the planets endlessly. So what happens when the Solar wind gets to the edge of our Solar system. It makes the bubble stay where it is.
All the Fe emitted by the Sun is ionised. It is not emitting FeO!
Whatever it was, I doubt if it will have the same media impact as a big bang.
Epiphanies in cosmology are invariably projections of the archetype of the self.
🤔 Also, can dark matter photons travel at the speed of…. light?
Withdraw my grades from '78/'79 Physics classes!
What happened to the *experiments?*
I like the underlying idea that energy flows, as a universal driving force, can spontaneously form order from chaos. Is as good a concept as anything to explain why, progressing up the chain, biology prefers complexity and beauty.
We know that Maxwell's equations are wrong because they provide different predictions that Weber's force law. For example, Weber's force law shows that two positive charges attract if their acceleration is high enough, such is the case with protons in the nucleus of an atom. We know that Weber's force law is foundational, because it's based on real observations, while Maxwell's equations are a mathematical construct that makes some simplifications. Similarly the General Theory of Relativity is wrong because it violates Mach's principle and Weber's force law when applied to gravitation. We need a complete reset of modern physics by going back to empirically established theories know in the 19th century, but ignored since then.
I'm an electrical engineer who bought your book in the early 90's. I still agree with your book title but for the most basic thought experiments. I think it is a form of hubris for cosmologists to assume that humans have constructed instruments to be able to 'see' the edge of the universe. We will see no such instrument in our lifetime. The second is that the big bang is akin to implying a start. There is no (biblical)beginning and as the data of the next generation JWST is analyzed, there will always be some farther cosmic phenomenon traveling in an unexplained vector. The universe is unimaginably vast, has always been and will always be. We will never know how many zeroes will be needed to measure the sky.
This strongly indicates that Einstein was spot on in his attempts to unify Maxwell’s equations with GR into a grand unified theory. He simply was ahead of his time lacking only the computational power of modern computers to solve the required complex equations. As such, someone needs to go back and revisit Einstein’s specific attempts in order to finish this unification which will then enable the further unification of the weak Nuclear force as it has already been unified with Maxwell’s equations.
This oversight in physics and cosmology in conjunction with the myth of the Big Bang explains why science has come off of the rails over the past 100 years. It’s sad how much potential progress we have lost by this failure/oversight!
Nope, he was right about VSL model that he abandoned in the early 1900s, unification of his flawed model was always impossible. Einsteinian GR has set physics back over 100 years!
@@SamMackrill VSL is pure woo. Flat earth level nonsesne.
_"in conjunction with the myth of the Big Bang"_
Want to deal with the evidence for the big bang? Word salad doesn't cut it.
@@davejones7632 bbt is just a fabrication with dark matter and dark energy to defraud financiers of quack scientists, truly the ultimate marketing strategy.
Good day Ole boy, eager to listen. Let's go. Peace ✌️ 😎.
You don't understand how time-space versions get created and tested, and how we avoid "dark ages" in the most interesting parts of the game of souls. The scenarios created to entertain physicists are dreadfully dull to most other players
How are asinine mathematical fantasies tested? How is a computer model fed by such fantasies tested?
Huh? Wot wot wot...... "Wot choo talkin bout Willis".. Arnt all points in time and space connected????
@@Dlweta57 No. New versions of the physical universe time-space aren't based on a new beginning of time or middle of space, a new Big Bang. They are based on finding a new midpoint that pushes the bounds of all dimensions. That's why the JWST is observing galaxies twice as old as we thought about 32 years ago. These new versions center around testing new major and minor versions of the architect of the co-created simulation multiverse, God, by awakening the first creator in a new chosen species and people. Only if the master cannot be corrupted by a major change can it be safely released from the lab
Plasma Cosmology is functional and has had my alert not yet astute attention as I require more time to process it and familiarize. It should be the mainstay of University level science from what I know of it :)
The door is ajar, and the plasma model is pushing, but there are hobnail boots against it. The boots jamming the door are peer review and sheer stubbornness.
@@daviddrew7852 as well as OVERWHELMING EVIDENTIAL SUPPORT. Seems Your blaming Nazis for undermining a weak concept. ♾
@@gringo1723 STOP BEING AN ONLINE TTROLL WITH THE NARROW CAPITAL OF ORTHODOX COSMOLOGY, YOU BITCH, DO SOMETHING THAT'S LITTLE FOR YOUR FUCKING LIFE
What happened? We dont know but were trying to figure it out
Yes but let's not just make stuff up then abuse people who don't accept it.
Maybe we can't see enough, and don't have enough information to know.
But it looks like light slowing by 4.6mm/s/y explains Hubble's constant, and puts the universe in a fairly stable situation.
@chrisoakey9841 100 agree. I have no problem with different theories but if your question the big bang your labeled a heretic and excommunicated from science and physics community
What was trillions years ago, how did the any atom come in to existence, how did anything come into existence out of nothing. How long ago did time start
Ayn Rand provided an answer over 60 years ago. The universe has always existed and will always exist. It cannot be created or destroyed. it is the totality of what exists and there is nothing outside of it(i.e. God). It is infinite in time but finite in size.
You mean, Epicurus?
@@pipi-mj5zi Perhaps, I have never heard of him, just looked into him. I don’t think Rand ever mentioned him or knew of him. Regardless, there was no Big Bang.
@@frhd3 And all the evidence says there was a big bang. Hence why practically everyone who formerly supported steady-state models had jumped ship even before COBE.
@@davejones7632 Nowadays, it's not like these charlatans adjust age data to fit their model, then they're just another idiot.
The little bang .
Folllowed by 13.5 billion years of disappointment.
Genesis had an explanation thats just as good as anyone's.
Phil Collins? Mick Rutherford? Peter Gabriel? Which one of them came up with this fairy tale?
@@ianw7898I don't know any of those blokes nor do I know which fair tale you refer to. There are many out there.
@@doghousedon1 Those blokes made up Genesis. You brought them up! And the fairy tale I refer to is the Bronze age woo in the book known as 'the bible'. However, it could equally refer to any number of other fairy tales believed by followers of various religions around the world.
@@doghousedon1 Genesis, the rock group. That is who I assume you were referring to :). Or were you on about some Bronze Age woo that somebody wrote down once?
@@ianw7898 STOP BEING AN ONLINE TTROLL WITH THE NARROW CAPITAL OF ORTHODOX COSMOLOGY, YOU BITCH, DO SOMETHING THAT'S LITTLE FOR YOUR FUCKING LIFE
Observations vs theory?
In the books I published before the JWST was launched I accurately predicted the old massive galaxies in the early universe because I had determined several of the theories used to describe the big bang and how the universe evolved were wrong, starting with thermodynamics, all the way down the line to general relativity's look back time. A single big bang and cosmic inflation never happened. The universe I determined could be hundreds of trillions of years old and we wouldn't even know it if my interpretations of the data was correct. Thermodynamics is wrong claiming energy and matter can't be created. It's the foundation of all other theories and models to describe the evolution of stars and galaxies. If it's wrong then everything from the big bang to the LCDM model would be wrong. If my interpretations of the theories and models were correct and Einstein's look back time was a huge blunder then astronomers using the JWST would not be able to look into the past like NASA and so many astronomers have been claiming for many many years. So, In the books I wrote quote "The JWST, James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." That's what the telescope would see if the universe was hundreds of trillions years old, energy and matter can be created in the cores of stars and black holes and a single big bang never happened. I even said if the JWST found old massive galaxies as far as it's able to see then they would become the mother of all paradoxes because it would refute thermodynamics, claiming energy and matter can't be created, it would refute the big bang happening 13.8 billion years ago, it would refute cosmic inflation, refute the age of the universe and it would contradict the claims made by the LCDM model on how the universe evolved over time. Thus because the old massive galaxies would refute so many of the accepted theories I called them the mother of all paradoxes. And I was right.
A big bang never happened. The universe is constantly growing in energy, space, matter, gravity, information and time. It is not static. The 1st law of thermodynamics is wrong. Energy and matter can indeed be created from nothing else there would not be any energy or matter in the universe.
There is no single Hubble constant value because stars and black holes are creating new energy and matter. They are not converting hydrogen into helium, mass into energy. They are constantly creating energy and matter over time. Old massive galaxies in the extreme distant universe is empirical evidence energy and matter is constantly being created new. If that was not the case, then the further a telescope looked the younger and younger galaxies and stars would appear to be. but because the galaxies further than 13.5 billion light-years away are old, massive, some older and more massive than our own galaxy means the the galaxies in the universe did not start at the same moment. The galaxies are older than our means matter and energy is constantly being created new everywhere.
Galaxies in one direction where the first ones developed would be the oldest while galaxies furthest away would be gradually younger and younger and moving away from the oldest galaxy. So I also said the telescope would find older and older mature galaxies in one direction with distance and in the opposite direction they would find galaxies to gradually become younger and younger with distance till the most distant galaxies came to the edge of a massive void. Everything would be moving away from the first galaxy. It would even contain a supermassive black hole in it's core weighing more than a trillion solar masses.
One of these days this is what they'll find, mark my words.
It's totally silly believing we can use a telescope to look into the past. We can no more use a telescope to look into the past than we can use a microscope to look into the future. Light information happens in a quantum instant when the observer or measuring device is contained inside the EM field being measured. Mark my words, everyone who assumes telescopes are like time machines and can see into the past are totally wrong. Even Einstein was wrong. Argue all you want.
Old massive galaxies in the early universe become empirical evidence Einstein's look back time is wrong. Think about it, how could galaxies be older than the Milky Way if a single big bang happened 13.8 billion years ago. Not possible. Hence why astronomers call them (impossible early galaxy problem). According to thermodynamics, big bang, age of the universe, look-back time, and the evolution of stars and galaxies over time they're not possible. LOL, yet I figured out what was wrong with all their rhetoric many years ago starting with the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Dark matter and dark energy are wrong too. The last book I published was titled DARK MATTER IS DEAD by Ron Kemp, published just 3 days ago. I explained why dark matter and dark energy are artifacts of the imagination. There is no missing mass or energy in the universe. They simply don't understand how all the energy and matter in the universe was/is constantly being made.
Astronomers even got black holes completely wrong. LOL, black holes don't have event horizons around them because nothing can fall into or collide with them. Not even another black hole can collide with them. LIGO has some explaining to do.
Do you want to know why there's no such thing as look-back time? It's due to the quantum entanglement of light and the fact that the telescope in order to see a distant galaxy has to be inside the galaxy's light cone. So each and every photon in the galaxy's EM field is quantum entangled. Whatever action happens to the light radiating off the stars is instantly conveyed to the observer regardless of distance from the relativistic effects occurring to light while it's traveling at c. Spooky instant action at any distance occurs when the observer looks. So, the telescope measures the distant galaxy in our time, as it looks today, not how it looked in the past. Time is relative to the observer, not the distant galaxy. Thus why it's called a relativistic effect. Time dilation (zero time) and length contraction (zero distance) is measured occurring to the light radiating off the distant light source. Regardless of distance to the EM source the observer measures it as it looks today, in our relative time.
This relativistic effect doesn't happen to light reflecting off a planet or moon because it's not the source of the light being measured and thus is not contained inside its light information. Reflected light takes time to reach the observer at 300,000 km/s.
Example, in 2002 the HST measured the star V838 Monocerotis explode. the light information was conveyed instantly to the telescope because it's contained inside the star's EM field, all the photons were entangled to the star upon the telescope measuring them. But it took several months for the light to reflect off the gas and debris surrounding the star and then reach the telescope. So the HST measured the initial increase in brightness when it exploded and then took several months for the light to bounce off the nearby gas and dust before making it to the telescope. Astronomers referred to it as a light echo, when in fact it was showing the relativistic effects of light when the telescope is contained inside the EM field it's measuring. Light happens in a quantum instant when the telescope or observer is contained inside the EM field being measured. We can no more use a telescope to look into the past than we can use a microscope to look into the future.
Einstein's look back time only applies to light that's reflected off of planets, moons and other small bodies that are not producing their own visible light.
You don't have to agree. But it's the only solution to the most distant galaxies being old, fully mature and larger than our own galaxy.
I just a carpenter. Plastered all over Dr Becky's JWST hype videos. That her predictions would be wrong and we would find old mature galaxies at the furthest reaches of the JWST. Wish i could find my comments. Lol.
@@michaelstiller2282 Yes, I did too. I asked her in 2019 if the JWST discovered old, massive galaxies further than the actual light distance of 14 billion light-years away what would it mean? She replied it would be a huge paradox because it would go against everything we were taught about the early universe, speed of light, look-back time etc.
@@ronaldkemp3952And no such galaxies have been found. So, pointless comment.
_"In the books I published "_
Any idiot can write a book, as Lerner proved. Where are the peer-reviewed papers?
@@michaelstiller2282_" and we would find old mature galaxies at the furthest reaches of the JWST."_
And we haven't.
I know that it’s convenient to use the same channel, but I wished you would use separate channels for astronomy and fusion. Mixing them up helps neither.
A common tactic used to promote one idea is to seem to support it with evidence derived from another or multitude of other subjects;
charletons recognise the profit in sowing confusion... ♾
I wish you provide proof of your bbt; like a nanogram of fairy dust and stop obfuscating the issue. Why you're even here?
@@gringo1723 Like changing one's opinion, like the proponents of the bbt. True.
According to my theory, the Universe started to expand, and the longer it exists, the faster the expansion is. Now its speed of expantion is approximately two times faster than light. And still speeds up.
Where's this kinetic energy coming from? 😂
not a theory, more like unsubstantiated hairbrained speculation...
And other bed time nursery rhimes we read to non adults!
When posting open ended nonsense try to keep in mind that throughout the theorized history of the Universe it is speculated that the RATE OF EXPANSION was/is (and potentially shall be) A VARIABLE. Even better- during the initial period of INFLATION the Universe expanded at a rate EXCEEDING THE SPEED OF LIGHT... (sorry, Albert). Currently, the EXPANSION RATE is perceived to have begun a notable INCREASE in the rate several Billion Years ago... Further(this for Albert's sake), the Expansion Rate changing is RELATIVE to the position of the observer, throughout the Universe.... ♾
By keeping my revolution in physics (my discovery and my law) secret, criminals have caused immeasurable harm to humanity. Which has already cost thousands of billions of dollars worldwide in 29 years for even better weapon systems. And don't forget the many human sacrifices. Discoverer extraterrestrial on January 17, 1995 Johann Zdebor - Donald Trump said that no one has done as much for the church as he has. And I say, no one has done more for humanity than me. End
THEORY OF EVERYTHING IDEA: Revised TOE: 1/24/2024a:
TOE Idea: Short version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test):
The 'gem' photon is the eternally existent energy unit of this universe.
The strong and weak nuclear forces are derivatives of the electromagnetic ('em') interactions between quarks and electrons. The nucleus is a magnetic field boundary. 'Gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
TOE Idea: Longer version: (currently dependent upon the results of my gravity test):
THE SETUP:
1. Modern science currently recognizes four forces of nature: The strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, gravity, and electromagnetism.
2. In school we are taught that with magnetism, opposite polarities attract and like polarities repel. But inside the arc of a large horseshoe magnet it's the other way around, like polarities attract and opposite polarities repel. (I have proved this to myself with magnets and anybody with a large horseshoe magnet and two smaller bar magnets can easily prove this to yourself too. It occurs at the outer end of the inner arc of the horseshoe magnet.).
3. Charged particles have an associated magnetic field with them.
4. Quarks, protons and electrons are charged particles and have their associated magnetic fields with them.
5. Photons also have both an electric and a magnetic component to them.
FOUR FORCES OF NATURE DOWN INTO TWO:
6. When an electron is in close proximity to the nucleus, it would basically generate a 360 degree spherical magnetic field.
7. Like charged protons would stick together inside of this magnetic field, while simultaneously repelling opposite charged electrons inside this magnetic field, while simultaneously attracting the opposite charged electrons across the inner portion of the electron's moving magnetic field.
8. There are probably no such thing as "gluons" in actual reality.
9. The strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force are probably derivatives of the electro-magnetic field interactions between quarks and electrons. In the case of the alpha particle (Helium nucleus), the electro-magnetic field interactions between the quarks themselves are what keeps them together in that specific structural format.
10. The interactions between the quarks EM forces are how and why protons and neutrons formulate as well as how and why protons and neutrons stay inside of the nucleus and do not just pass through as neutrinos do. (The neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
11. The nucleus is probably an electro-magnetic field boundary.
THE GEM FORCE INTERACTIONS AND QUANTA:
12. At this time, I personally believe that what is called 'gravity' is a part of electromagnetic radiation, gravity acting 90 degrees to the 'em' modalities, which of course act 90 degrees to each other. 'Gravity' is the force which allows a photon to travel across the vast universe without that swirling photon being flung apart or ripped apart by other photons and/or matter interactions. Gravity being a part of the 'em' photon could also possibly be how numbers exist in this existence for math to do what math does in this existence (the internal oscillations of the 3 different parts of the 'gem' photon, each modality having a maximum in one direction, a neutral, and a maximum in the other direction.) 'Gravity' is not matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' is a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interact with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
13. I also believe that the 'gem' photon is the energy unit in this universe that makes up everything else in this universe, including eternally existent space and time. ('Space' being eternally existent energy itself, the eternally existent 'gem' photon, 'Time' being the eternally existent flow of energy, 'Space Time' being eternally existent energy and it's eternally existent flow).
14. When these vibrating 'gem' photons interact with other vibrating 'gem' photons, they tangle together and can interlock at times. Various shapes (strings, spheres, whatever) might be formed, which then create sub-atomic material, atoms, molecules, and everything in existence in this universe.
15. When the energy units unite and interlock together they would tend to stabilize and vibrate.
16. I believe there is probably a Photonic Theory Of The Atomic Structure.
17. Everything is basically "light" (photons) in a universe entirely filled with "light" (photons).
THE MAGNETIC FORCE SPECIFICALLY:
18. When the electron with it's associated magnetic field goes around the proton with it's associated magnetic field, internal and external energy oscillations are set up.
19. When more than one atom is involved, and these energy frequencies align, they add together, specifically the magnetic field frequency.
20. I currently believe that this is where a line of flux originates from, aligned magnetic field frequencies.
NOTES:
21. The Earth can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic field, electrical surface field, and gravity, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
22. The flat spiral galaxy can be looked at as being a massive singular interacting photon with it's magnetic fields on each side of the plane of matter, the electrical field along the plane of matter, and gravity being directed towards the galactic center's black hole where the gravitational forces would meet, all three photonic forces all being 90 degrees from each other.
23. As below in the singularity, as above in the galaxy and probably universe as well.
24. I believe there are only two forces of nature, Gravity and EM, (GEM). Due to the stability of the GEM this is also why the forces of nature haven't evolved by now.
25. 'God' does not actually exist except for as a concept alone. The singular big bang theory is a fairy tale for various reasons. The CMBR from the supposed 'bang' should be long gone by now and should not even be able to be seen by us. Red Shift observations have a more 'normal' already known physics explanation, no dark energy nor dark matter needed. The universe always existed in some form and never had a beginning and will most probably never have an end. Galaxies collapse in upon themselves, 'bang', eventually generating new galaxies. Galaxies and 'life' just come and go in this eternally existent existence.
DISCLAIMER:
26. As I as well as all of humanity truly do not know what we do not know, the above certainly could be wrong. It would have to be proved or disproved to know for more certainty. Currently, my gravity test has to be accomplished to prove or disprove that portion of the TOE idea. But, if not this way, then what exactly is the TOE of this existence?
GRAVITY TEST:
WARNING: (CONTAINS EXISTENTIAL MATTERS):
Here is the test for the 'gravity' portion of my TOE idea. I do not have the necessary resources to do the test but maybe you or someone else reading this does, will do the test, then tell the world what is found out either way.
a. Imagine a 12 hour clock.
b. Put a magnetic field across from the 3 to 9 o'clock positions.
c. Put an electric field across from the 6 to 12 o'clock positions.
(The magnetic field and electric field would be 90 degrees to each other and should be polarized so as to complement each other.)
d. Direct a high powered laser through the center of the clock at 90 degrees to the em fields.
e. Do this with the em fields on and off.
(The em fields could be varied in size, strength, density and depth. The intent would be to energy frequency match the laser and em fields for optimal results, cancelling out the em modalities of the laser, thereby leaving behind the gravity modality.)
f. Look for any gravitational / anti-gravitational effects.
(Including the utilization of ferro cells so as to be able to actually see the energy field movements.)
(And note: if done right, it's possible a mini gravitational black hole might form. Be ready for it. In addition, it's possible a neutrino might be formed before the black hole stage, the neutrino being a substance with a very high gravitational modality with very low 'em' modalities.)
(An alternative to the above would be to direct 3 high powered lasers, or a single high powered laser split into 3 beams, each adjustable to achieve the above set up, all focused upon a single point in space. Maybe I could concentrate the Sun's 'em' into a high powered laser. Might even work with the correct set up breaking the Sun's 'em' down into single 'em' energy frequencies acting like a single energy frequency laser. A high energy laser powered by the Sun. Cool, or actually pretty hot. More than one way to build a laser.)
'If' effects are noted, 'then' further research could be done. 'Gravity' would not be matter warping the fabric of spacetime, 'gravity' would be a part of spacetime that helps to make up matter. The gravity and 'em' modalities of matter interacting with the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime and the gravity and 'em' modalities of spacetime interacting with the gravity and 'em' modalities of matter.
'If' effects are not noted, 'then' my latest TOE idea is wrong. But still, we would know what 'gravity' was not, which is still something in the scientific world. (But hey, might even still get a Sun powered laser, which of course could even be utliized in outer space for various agendas.).
This test can speak for itself. It will either be true, partly true, or not true at all. It will either show what gravity truly is, might be, or is not. Science still wins either way and moves forward.
* And note: Whether my gravity test or another's, a gravitational black hole would have to be formed to prove the concept as being really true. A gravitational black hole that 'if' self fed itself, could literally wipe out this Earth and all on it, possibly this solar system, possibly put a black hole in this section of our galaxy, and potentially even causing a ripple effect in this galaxy and surrounding universe. But hey, if it does, no worries. Nobody would be left to prosecute those who did so. (Possibly famous last words: "Hey, it worked. Ooooppppssss.................)
But as NASA has already proven that low gravity conditions over a prolonged period of time is harmful to the human species, and large rotating space ships won't really work for space bases on planets and moons, those space bases probably being needed somewhere along the way out of this solar system and galaxy, we need to figure out what gravity truly is and see if we can generate artificial gravity so as to have smaller space ships and proper gravity conditions for space bases on planets and moons. Otherwise, at least all human life will most probably die and go extinct one day. Currently, no exceptions.
* Added note: Just trying to save at least 1 single species from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth so that life itself from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to. Gives me something to do while I exist, otherwise, what is it all and everything for? Even if my TOE idea were correct, but if it did not help species survive beyond this Earth, what good would it ultimately be?
So, are you feeling lucky? Doing nothing and at least the entire human species eventually dies and goes extinct with a high degree of certainty. Doing a gravity test, (mine and/or another's), and there is at least a slim chance of literally wiping out this entire Earth and all on it, and possibly more. Do you and other's truly want me to prove my TOE idea as being really true?
But also:
Questions: Are at least some black holes in this universe due to a species who were trying to discern what 'gravity' truly was, came up with a test to do so, were successful, but the black hole generated (to prove what gravity truly was) self fed itself and wiped them and at least their entire planet out? What species might have existed where a black hole now resides?
(Since all of life itself is ultimately meaningless in the grand of scheme of things anyway, do the gravity test and see what occurs?)
* Added note: Suggestion: 'IF' society did not want to do the gravity test, one suggestion might be to at least create a model as if it were true, then see how that model matches with observations and predictions. It might be possible to discern the theory of everything without actually generating a gravitational black hole (which would definitely prove the TOE idea as being really true).
Highly recommended You pursue establishing Your own TH-cam channel.. oh, wait- I see TH-cam REMOVED Your DISCUSSION menu option...
TH-cam can be so cruel... Have You considered WRITING A BOOK? What the hell, give Eric Lerner some competition! As motivation, remember You are here until You are not.... ♾
@@gringo1723 I wrote a manuscript, final edition back in 2012, limited printing, entitled 'From My Perspective'. I have since gained more insights since then. I have pondered writing a new manuscript with the new information in it, but my life possibly is coming to an end. Next month will be my anniversary of being 20 years basically being on 'death row' with advanced cancer along with other medical issues. I stopped my cancer treatment back in 2018, the cancer is still inside of me, and yet I am still here at this time. For whatever it is worth, I am grateful for this past 20 years to allow me to have the opportunity to further my research and analysis concerning those 'big' items concerning life and existence. It has also helped to pass the time of my existence by helping to keep my mind busy. The mind, use it or lose it. I have chose to use it. But again, I am here until I am not.
I wrote a manuscript, final edition back in 2012, limited printing, entitled 'From My Perspective'. I have since gained more insights since then. I have pondered writing a new manuscript with the new information in it, but my life possibly is coming to an end. Next month will be my anniversary of being 20 years basically being on 'death row' with advanced cancer along with other medical issues. I stopped my cancer treatment back in 2018, the cancer is still inside of me, and yet I am still here at this time. For whatever it is worth, I am grateful for this past 20 years to allow me to have the opportunity to further my research and analysis concerning those 'big' items concerning life and existence. It has also helped to pass the time of my existence by helping to keep my mind busy. The mind, use it or lose it. I have chose to use it. But again, I am here until I am not.
@@gringo1723 Note: I replied to you on this thread as well as the other thread concerning the big bang discussion. Apparently YT blocked both of my replies to you. For you and/or anybody else who wants to see those replies, try this trick:
'Sort by' up above; Select 'Newest first'; Scroll down to the respective thread; Select 'replies'. This often works so as to be able to see comments that YT hides.
Whatever it started from, obviously, it will never be found accept mindset of speculation. Not truth.
Sorry this is a little off topic, I watching the third StarShip launch you could actually see pressure waves distortion of the video feed image it was unbelievable, that got me wondering could this event showed up on any of the gravity wave detectors? The ability to detect such an event could have a beneficial values to gravity wave detection in general.
They can't. It's BS.
The tired light hypothesis has to take account the fact that time is slowed. However, instead of an expanding spacetime we can have a curved spacetime that would give the same effect. I also believe such curvature of spacetime would produce a radiation signiture that would appear as CMB. As any curved space time would produce radiation field around it.
All bodies of differing mass should by my thinking have an associated radiation field. Is this what heats the solar corona? Is this what produces Van Allen belts?, is this what heats smaller planets and planetoids internally. Is this radiation in anyway related to the hawking radiation?.
If CMB is caused by a universal curved spacetime then wouldn't appear as a uniform radiation blackbody spectrum phenomena around us. Surely the normslised out energy density within spacetime has a mass over large scales and distances and must therefore curve spacetime.
I have always believed that the more we study any property of the Universe, be it size distance time structure... they all lose meaning at some point.
If time and space are indeed curved back on themselves in the form of a closed universe system then the concept of and outside, a size and an age of the universe do become nonsensical
Sadly Your mentality is lacking the functional capacity to understand the complexity which is actuality; face it, this is the Human condition. Potentially if we persist Human understanding shall evolve, allowing for further insights into that which we are currently unequipped to fathom.
♾
There has never been a creation
How did existence begin?
Why did it have to begin? What existed before it began? It's probably infinite.
It's constant creation. Existence begins (is) now. It's always been that way.
Now is the only time anything can be created.
@@periurbanThe problem with that is that nothing can be infinite, nothing physical can be infinite, time cannot be infinite, if it can be counted then it cannot be infinite. Infinity is a concept, it cannot actually exist. That's why the universe is quantum, there is a minimum size of distance, a minimum amount of time.
@@snoutysnouterson I understand, but, if you are talking about theoretical proton decay as the ultimate sanction against infinity then you may be right. The problem with that is that proton decay is theoretical, and has never been observed. It is only proposed so that we can envision the future of an ever expanding universe, where all matter is eventually separated from all other matter. If there is no universal expansion, and therefore no beginning, then the theoretical need for proton decay disappears, and an infinity of "stuff" is possible.
But I can provide no evidence that you are incorrect! If only it was possible to wait long enough to see how it turns out!
At this point I think we stand on the cusp of a new understanding of what the red shift and microwave background are actually telling us.
I think the idea of an expanding universe was reasonable, given those observations. But many other observations and mathematical ideas now make the theory less tenable, and the challenge is to figure it out anew.
No easy task!
Bingo! Continually being created and destroyed, constant flux and evolution/self organization. It's all a question of energy manifestation and transformation......balance.
Thank you Dr Learner. Spheres, Epicycles and the BB should be relics.
THE ALL, thought the Universe into existence.
How Do You Think Without A Brain To Think? 😂
First principles bruh
Are you referring to yourself? The Universe is electric. What does your brain use to function?@@TheFXofNewton
thunderbolts cosmology
is on the same level as flat earth.
@@davejones7632 bbt is below the flat earth level because mainstream cosmology is just incompetent people who think they know it all
Without an exploration and analysis of consciousness we will never find out what is causation, and thus all our research will lead to a dead end.
why do you not ack the electric universe theory as being on the right track if you are pro hannes alfven don scott modeled the birkland currents and the jwst is showing all the filaments dr robitae proved the sun is solid body . this to would lend to the electric anode in space powered from birkland currents safire project demonstrated an electric sun double layers as well
Birkeland currents are an induced phenomenon that only exist in planetary magnetospheres. And Don Scott is a clueless, unpublished EE. And safire was a scam.
@@davejones7632 The scam here is that crazy people believe in that stupid bbt theory
One big (mental) problem for me of a much older universe is that it makes the so-called Fermi Paradox even more profound.
In my view, it makes the Zoo Hypothesis highly likely, as other explanations fail over the long term.
What do you suppose the conditions are for the dropping of the Zoo fence, and our welcome to the galactic neighbourhood?
It would seem Robin Hanson's Grabby Aliens hypothesis makes some sense - but only from a greedy human perspective.
I don't have any money riding on what started the universe, or when, but I would be prepared to bet against the BB hypothesis with a large sum of money.
A much MUCH older universe would also help to explain why humans exist so early in the history of the universe - something which is very hard to reconcile. Statistically speaking, we should appear about half way through the "life-bearing" lifespan of our universe - but we appeared right at the start - which doesn't seem... right.
I don't believe there is a paradox to be solved. Any species sufficiently intelligent and capable of travelling between the stars probably has no need to do so. Our very human outward urge (as expressed in science fiction) may evaporate over time as we learn to adjust the fabric of the universe to our needs. Rather than travel the universe, perhaps advanced civilizations transcend its limitations. We don't see them, because they are no longer here.
The Fermi Paradox presumes that humans are interesting (to higher intelligences). Thus, it predicated upon human ego, and so inherently flawed. A pseudo-paradox.
@@Celtokee Sorry, I do not accept that. It *must* be an inherent quality of intelligent life that it is deeply curious. Without that quality they could not become technological.
And we know enough about our universe to say that life like ours is incredibly rare. And rare things are always fascinating. And so yes - alien species WOULD be very interested in us. Very interested indeed.
As a species matures, its morals mature with it - necessarily - and the protection of life becomes important - just as we are starting to do today.
And in fact, humans are now so concerned about so-called "lesser" animals, that if a rare snail is found in a location where a dam is proposed - there is no chance that damn will be built. Or if it is, it will only be after ALL the snails have been caught, and relocated to another area that will support them nicely.
Why would aliens in interested in us? For literally countless reasons. Because information and communications are the most valuable resources in the universe. Who knows what our game of chess might be worth to aliens?
This has nothing to do with human ego. We already express massive interest in bacteria and microfauna - stuff we can't even see!
So, to say aliens would not be interested in us is in violation of logic and reason.
The real question is: How will (have) aliens respond to knowledge of our existence. I deny that any so-called UAP are aliens, by the way.
@@Chris.Davies You said "must be an inherent quality of intelligent life that it is deeply curious." That's a presumption. Collectively, as a species, humans have unusually inflated egos that blinds them to how intensely boring they are. Arrogance is a characteristic of the species.
You postulate Human existence originating within a given period of the Universe's existence; what data from where You derive Your specific dating is simply conjecture. Your "Statistically speaking" comment is based on NO STATISTICS as too many of the pertinent factors are simply unknowable. I would suggest engaging Your Brain before putting Your Texting into gear...
As to the various possible explanations to the FERMI PARADOX, my favorite is the Tool Maker's Koan; toolmaking evolves to the point where Life may be wiped out, then Evolution does a cold restart.... Everything Changes, Everything Stays the Same... ♾
What did? Matrix!
What did happen? Easy, God the father created as the son Christ and the Holy Spirt looked on.
I like Conrad Ranzan's dynamic steady state eternal infinite cellular universe.
I like turtles
@@snoutysnouterson of pertinence; do Turtles like You back? Or is this a one sided affection?
Jello Biafra?
He's holidaying in Cambodia
Hmmm intentional randomness????
@@Dlweta57 He reminds me of Biafra.
@@fumanpoo4725 Ohhhh. Ok
Earth’s climate and weather (all life on earth) begins with our sun. Without our sun, we wouldn’t be here. It is therefore also appropriate to hypothesis that our galaxy's existence began and is sustained by the star at it's center. Given this line of thinking, it is also applicable to suggest that there might be as many big bangs as there are galaxies.
duhhhhh
Have you read Time Waves on the Shores of Forever? The theories all mirror the new data coming out.
You did.
Prōcěss, prōcěssəs