Cosmology Views
From my view, there is a list of known problems in modern or popular cosmology.
This post describes the critical problems. This post becomes a long comparison of popular cosmology to Electric Universe cosmology.
Among the words associated with calamity are: crisis, disaster, misadventure, and mistake; all apply to popular cosmology.
The items are in alphabetical order, not ranked.
The basic problem is: claims are made with no evidence. If these claims were required to have evidence then the mistaken claims would not persist. Cosmology does not enforce accountability for anyone making unjustified claims. 19th century science was based on experiments and evidence. 20th century cosmology made the transition to theories and simulations without requiring important evidence. This change to a theoretical basis, near the start of the 20th century, is truly a misadventure.
The list (trying to cover all important topics; the letters serve as a reference):
A) Accelerating universe expansion.
B) Big bang
C) Cosmological model and Cosmological redshift
D) Dark matter and Dark energy
E) Electric fields
F) Fabric of space
G) Galaxy velocity
H) black Holes
L) gravitational Lensing
M) Magnetic fields
N) Neutron star
P) Plasma physics
Q) Quasar velocity
R) Relativity and spacetime
S) Sun and stars
T) Time and velocity
V) Velikovsky
W) gravitational Waves
X) eXpansion
SC) Standard Candle (not a mistake)
Each item has a brief description. The list is long so the post is long.
A) Accelerating universe expansion.
The 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics winning effort for this claim of acceleration was riddled with mistakes including:
1) a mistake treating Cepheid variable stars as supernovae,
2) a mistake treating the Cepheid oscillation as time dilation, and
3) a mistake using redshift for the host galaxies in the analysis, which is mistake (G).
The claimed acceleration is a mistake trying to justify mistake (X).
B) Big bang
The big bang is utter science fiction. The story proposes an unknown thing exploded at some distant unverified time creating the fabric of space and some other unknown stuff which transitioned to matter and eventually to everything we see today. However we cannot know what the big bang started with, nor what that changed to, nor the final result because we are still limited to our observable universe (and a Zone of Avoidance) so the big bang had to create even what we don't know about yet. Also, this story requires a sequence of transitional steps with none having evidence to confirm the steps are correct. The CMB was proposed as evidence for one transitional step but the CMB is only noise from Earth's oceans, or another mistake. There is no evidence to support anything in the big bang story.
Big bang is a mistake.
C) Cosmological model and Cosmological redshift
The Lamba-Cold Dark Matter cosmological model is an ambitious attempt to simulate (like in a computer game) how the big bang with all its unknowns could evolve into what is observed. Cosmology is restricted by gravity as the critical force (mistakes E and M) so dark matter is required in the model for the observed structure in the universe which gravity cannot explain.
This model is based on other mistakes. The model cannot be verified when depending on unverifiable dark matter.
The cosmological redshift is the mistake trying to overcome the fundamental mistake (G) in cosmology. Instead of fixing (G), large redshifts are claimed to occur during light passing through the expanding fabric of space which is a loss of energy, a violation of the conservation of energy, so this claim is another mistake.
D) Dark matter and Dark energy
Dark matter is proposed wherever mistake (M) happens. A spiral galaxy's rotation is driven by its magnetic field. The structure observed in the spiral arms is driven by a magnetic field. Several separate published studies agree with the conclusion of no dark matter. Dark matter is a mistake based on (M).
Dark energy is claimed as the driver for the universe expansion which is mistake (X).
Dark energy has no identified source so as a violation of the conservation of energy, dark energy is a mistake.
E) Electric fields
Stars like the Sun are known to have a positive charge so they exert an electric field.
Globular clusters and elliptical galaxies are spherical clusters of stars with their difference in diameter. All the stars have an electric field which can repel the approach of others. Without that, these clusters must collapse by gravity; they do not collapse but remain stable. In some large spheres a black hole, mistake (H), is proposed to explain anomalous star motions near the center. That is a mistake because a source of gravity at the center cannot explain how all the stars move radially in individual spans between center and outer edge whose diameter is maintained, while not synchronized. Any anomaly is not explained by more gravity from the center.
A sphere of stars has a balance of electromagnetic forces among a star count in the millions in a cluster or billions in a galaxy.
Ignoring electric fields is a mistake.
F) Fabric of space
Einstein's theory of relativity attempted to emulate the force of gravity in a mathematical model where the observer's coordinate system would be curved by a gravitational field so the observer using this coordinate system for motion would have their path follow the curved coordinates.
There is no evidence this mathematical model is better than using the force of gravity.
For example: When NASA calculates a space probe slingshot trajectory by close encounters with planets, these calculations are done with basic Newtonian physics, not the spacetime model.
This mathematical model is claimed by cosmologists to be real and the curvature in the observer's coordinate system affects bodies in the universe. Only an observer would select a coordinate in their own coordinate system to describe a destination for motion. Nothing else in the universe would use a coordinate system defined by someone. Everything in the universe moves subject to the 3 fundamental forces of electric, magnetic, and gravity.
The claim light bends by the curvature of spacetime requires evidence. Light always propagates in a line (except when diffracted by changes in the medium). Light never travels to a coordinate in a coordinate system or along distortions in a curved 4-dimensional coordinate system or affected by a fabric of space. The fabric of space is not real and cannot serve as a medium.
The fabric's primary purpose is the basis for the universe expansion and the cosmological redshift. Both are mistakes (X and C).
This claimed fabric of space has no evidence and is a mistake.
G) Galaxy velocity
Every galaxy velocity is determined by an absorption line shift caused by that atom's motion in the line of sight. For nearly all galaxies this shift is to the red implying the atom is moving away from Earth. A few galaxies exhibit a blue shift implying the atom is approaching Earth.These include the notable galaxies M31 and M33 in our Local Group.
In all cases this shift is from an atom's velocity not the galaxy. There is never evidence the atom is moving at the velocity of the galaxy behind the atom. This fundamental mistake is the basis for many other mistakes when dealing with galaxies.
There is a second mistake associated with (G), assuming a red shift value (from an atom) is directly related to the galaxy's distance. Intuitively this relationship for an atom to distance makes no sense. They should be unrelated.
There is no evidence for that assumption to apply to every galaxy, so that is another mistake.
Both a quasar velocity and distance are mistakes.. <I explained this mistake link>
However (SC) describes how a reliable standard candle can provide a galaxy distance,
H) black Holes
Stephen Crothers of EU has extensively explained problems with a black hole and relativity.
Essentially a black hole is a failure in the spacetime mathematical model. The result is a massive object in spacetime is in a point of zero size having infinite density. This is impossible in physics.
In April 2019 an image was created for what was claimed to be a black hole, but it was not.
Wal Thorbhill explained a few days before the media blitz the core of the M87 galaxy is a plasmoid (a word coined in the 1950's). This plasmoid has a torus shape, more casually called a donut.
There is no observational evidence for a black hole. Another claim is dismissed below with mistake (W).
Black holes are a mistake.
L) gravitational Lensing
Because astronomers use the data from mistakes (G and Q) more distant objects by redshift will be observed to be adjacent to or in front of closer objects by redshift.
instead of recognizing mistakes (G and (Q) the solution is the observation is an illusion. The light from the distant object is bent to appear in the 'wrong' place by the gravitational field from another object near this line of sight. This claim cannot be verified by observing the distant object without the object doing the claimed bending. Knowing the mistakes in (G and (Q), all distances are wrong, and the correct explanation is the object is actually where it is observed relative to the line of sight. There is no illusion.
A famous experiment was performed in 1919 using a solar eclipse to verify the light from a distant star bends by the Sun's gravity as predicted by relativity.
There are problems with this evidence.
1) the conditions in 1919 could have affected the instruments and their results.
2) the original photographic plates were lost.
3) Eddington had the opportunity to change the results.
4) there is an alternate explanation for this observation.
This has been explained by EU scientist Edward Dowdye. Briefly, light will bend when passing through the plasma at the bottom of the solar atmosphere, like normal diffraction.
5) The experiment was done with a star directly at the solar limb for maximum diffraction. Stars further from the limb would not bend by diffraction but by only this claimed gravitational lensing. They did not.
If this claim of lensing were valid there should be distant objects having their light bent by every massive body in the universe, like M31, but none are observed.
The claim of evidence in the 1919 observation is not conclusive.
Gravitational lensing is invoked only when required for inconvenient redshift combinations. This is a mistake.
M) Magnetic fields
Magnetic fields cannot be ignored when nearly all of the universe is charged or plasma. Ignoring magnetic fields, as explained for mistake (D) results in other mistakes.
N) Neutron star
A neutron star is claimed as the explanation for a pulsar an object with a very fast frequency of oscillation in its generated radiation. The explanation using physics is this is a behavior of a capacitor where the source discharges, recharges, and repeats.
Instead a neutron star is claimed to consist of only neutrons so this extremely compact body can rotate rapidly having a small circumference.
There are several unverified claims in this scenario.
1) neutrons outside a nucleus have a half life of 10 minutes or a life span of 15 minutes. The claim many neutrons can remain stable longer has no evidence and certainly not for the claimed quantity in a neutron star.
2) the neutron star is claimed to have a strong magnetic field. This claim has no evidence and a magnetic field is generated by an electric current but this mass of neutrons has none.
The claim is this star rotates very rapidly but there is no force to drive this claimed rapid rotation. There is no evidence this hypothetical body of only neutrons could be held together by only the strong force between neutrons which must overcome the substantial centrifugal force from the rotation.
The claim is this rotating neutron star can generate a beam of radio or X-ray frequencies with no evidence for such a mechanism never observed in an experiment. A rotating object with only a magnetic field cannot generate X-rays as claimed. Electric Universe scientists have explained how an electric star could have this capacitor-like behavior without unverified mechanisms.
The neutron star is a mistake.
P) Plasma physics
Irving Langmuir in the 1850's applied the word plasma to the observed behaviors of a mix of positive and negative charged particles flowing together in a filament. He likened this to blood flow so the word described the behavior.
In 1970 Hannes Alfven was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the new science of plasma physics. Plasma has unique behaviors. Popular cosmology has yet to adapt the principles of plasma physics.
Treating plasma as a gas of particles is a mistake. Observed plasma filaments lead to dark matter as the unverified cause but the real cause is an inherent plasma behavior.
Q) Quasar velocity
A quasar velocity is determined by a hydrogen absorption line redshift caused by that atom's motion. There is no evidence the atom is moving at the same velocity as the quasar in the line of sight.
As mentioned in (G) another mistake follows where this atom's redshift is assumed proportional to the quasar's distance.
Both a quasar velocity and distance are mistakes.. <I explained this mistake link>
R) Relativity and spacetime
This unverified combination has many consequences. Relativity as the basis for 20th century cosmology resulted in the reliance on gravity to explain everything, leading to mistakes (E and M). The misplaced confidence in spacetime directly resulted in mistake (W).
Stephen Crothers of EU has extensively explained problems in relativity.
Relativity in cosmology is a mistake.
S) Sun and stars
The Sun is claimed to be a gaseous sphere radiating energy from the fusion of hydrogen into helium within the core at extreme pressure and temperature.
Upon an observation of the sunspots this claim is already a mistake. The visible surface has differential rotation by latitude. This observation is impossible by that claim. The Sun is composed of a form of condensed matter called liquid metallic hydrogen. The Sun is not a sphere of gas.
The work by EU scientists Stephen Crothers, Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Donald Scott have explained different facets of the Sun in the Electric Universe.
A star generates its electromagnetic radiation driven by electromagnetic behaviors that derive from an electric current through the solar poles, from the host galaxy. The primary power source is not fusion in the core. The SAFIRE project observed fusion can occur on the surface due to the intensity of electromagnetic forces present there.
The gaseous solar model is a mistake.
T) Time and velocity
Relativity has 2 critical assumptions in its treatment of motion in spacetime
1) Time can be treated as a dimension which an object can move along and rather than a fixed increment for time clicks, time can be changed by motion (near velocity c) or a gravitational field.
Attempts to verify this claimed time behavior are difficult to do by experiment as extreme velocities are required to observe any effect.
One consequence of relativity's manipulation of time is other unjustified expectations like time travel and worm holes where one is claimed capable of traveling to a different coordinate in both physical coordinate and a time coordinate. This remains unverified fantasy.
2) no motion or even the force of gravity can exceed the velocity of light, or c.
This assumption was proven wrong by quasars having a hydrogen atom measured by red shift moving faster than the velocity of light.
This assumption is known to be a mistake.
However cosmologists tried to maintain that velocity limit by two unverified claims:
1) The fabric of space was expanding faster than c so the galaxies riding on this expanding fabric were not actually moving that fast but the observed redshift was the combination of the galaxy's motion, still less than c, and the motion of the fabric which is not matter so the velocity limit does not apply.
2) The cosmological redshift was the reason for this redshift which was changed by the expanding fabric. This is described in mistake (C).
Relativity remains a theory lacking evidence. Some of it has already failed.
V) Velikovsky
Immanuel Velikovsky published Worlds in Collision (1950) describing events recorded by our ancestors implying several planets deviated from the orbits they are currently in.
He also published and Earth in Upheaval (1955) describing geology observations implying catastrophic upheavals in the Earth.
Many scientists attempted to suppress the publication of Worlds in Collision but a publisher of non-scientific books was willing to publish the book. These scientists had no evidence to back their claims of mistakes by Velikovsky.
This travesty of attempted censorship was called the 'Velikovsky Affair.'
As space probes visited the planets, Velikovsky's claims (like the hot Venus, Jupiter as a radio source, and electrical scarring on planet surfaces) were confirmed by the observational evidence.
Cosmology was eventually forced to accept Velikovsky's claim the solar system is capable of change.
from Wikipedia:
The Nice model is a scenario for the dynamical evolution of the Solar System. It is named for the location where it was initially developed, in 2005 in Nice, France. It proposes the migration of the giant planets from an initial compact configuration into their present positions, long after the dissipation of the initial protoplanetary disk. In this way, it differs from earlier models of the Solar System's formation. This planetary migration is used in dynamical simulations of the Solar System to explain historical events including the Late Heavy Bombardment of the inner Solar System, the formation of the Oort cloud, and the existence of populations of small Solar System bodies including the Kuiper belt, the Neptune and Jupiter trojans, and the numerous resonant trans-Neptunian objects dominated by Neptune. Its success at reproducing many of the observed features of the Solar System means that it is widely accepted as the current most realistic model of the Solar System's early evolution,although it is not universally favoured among planetary scientists. Later research revealed a number of differences between the original Nice model's predictions and observations of the current Solar System, for example the orbits of the terrestrial planets and the asteroids, leading to its modification.
(excerpt end)
An observation:
This model clearly accepts the planets have changed their orbits during the evolution of the solar system.
Velikovsky has contributed to our understanding of that past evolution.
W) gravitational Waves
Wal Thornhill of EU has described the problem in the proposed gravitational wave (GW); they do not exist in the Electric Universe.
On October 22, 2019 I posted about the beginnings of gravitational physics. For a while even Einstein doubted them. At a 1957 meeting (about relativity) the scientists agreed these gravitational waves could be detected. The LIGO system was developed to detect them. LIGO has claimed numerous detections and was awarded the 2017 Nobel Prize in Physics.
However, LIGO does not detect the waves as claimed.
A leak from LIGO to the press in Germany in June 2019 revealed the pivotal wave detection (for the prize) was created after a rare gamma ray burst was reported to match the burst location; this burst was required for evidence of the wave detection. The claimed GW event was created to match the evidence and assigned a time before the burst, and the published figures were crafted to suit the paper; this is not correct science. There has never been a GW detection with evidence.< this was posted>
On November 10,2019 I gave the LIGO Facebook page (there was no other public method) a prediction for wave detections in 3 separate 5-day spans in November. The first range was quickly confirmed with wave detections the first only 2 hours after the prediction and the second 5 hours later. The subsequent predicted spans later in November were also confirmed with wave detections.
These GW detections can be predicted because LIGO declares a wave detection for a wave from another source, an earth tide, the uplift in Earth's crust by the Moon or Sun overhead. As the Earth rotates this is essentially a wave in the crust. The very first LIGO GW event in 2015 was on the same day as a perigee when the Moon is closest in its orbit.
LIGO detects a wave from an earth tide, not a gravitational wave from an astrophysical source. LIGO claims of mergers of black holes and neutron stars are a fantasy, having no evidence.
The LIGO GW detection claim suggests an implicit confirmation of:
1) a GW exists and can be detected,
2) spacetime is a propagation medium for a GW,
3) Einstein's predictions for spacetime,
4) black holes and neutron stars exist and their mergers are detected, with each having a precise mass
5) a GW has enough detail to describe the binary pair in the GW event; these details are necessary for this new science of gravitational physics.
LIGO has confirmed nothing other than their failure to understand what type of wave was detected.
Gravitational physics still has no basis, having no valid GW detection. Unfortunately, LIGO is providing details from an earth tide, so this science is based on invalid data from a mistake.
In December 2019, I provided NSF (the funder of LIGO) the details of my predictions, results, and conclusion, but the prompt response was essentially the LIGO scientists are 'some of the foremost experts in the field' so nothing has changed.
I made several subsequent comments to the LIGO facebook page's posts but never got a response.
Gravitational waves are a mistake. <I explained this mistake link>
X) eXpansion
The claim of an expanding universe is based on many mistakes (like A, G, Q) and assuming the expansion is real results in other mistakes (like D).
The universe is infinite and it has much stuff moving in it. This stuff is not riding on an invisible, curvable, stretchable fabric created in the big bang.
SC) Standard Candle (not a mistake)
A standard candle is a star with a reliable brightness.
A standard candle provides a distance measurement because light dims by distance in a predictable manner,
Whenever a standard candle is found its distance can be calculated.
This metric can apply to galaxies or globular clusters.
The reliability is critical.
A Cepheid variable star is the most widely used. However it has several types of stars and luminosity curves so matching an observation to the correct SC is also critical.
A supernova has been tries but they appear unreliable.
There is an attempt to use a specific star type but that requires resolution to an individual star, not possible at a great distance.
The SC provides a distance while (G) cannot.
Conclusion for this calamity:
Popular cosmology has so many mistakes, it needs to be completely replaced by the only viable alternative, the Electric Universe cosmology.