Modern cosmology is pivoted around the two linchpins of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Einstein himself is known to have doubted the compatibility of the two. This was apparently because Einstein could not fully accept that the behavior of subatomic particles was probabilistic rather than deterministic.
foto: http://nfajw.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/einstein_tongue.jpg
There was a fundamental divorcing of cause and effect that he was inherently averse to. He simply didn’t like the idea of the subatomic particles being governed by random chance.
His rather unsurprisingly (being him), prophetic words, while explaining his “hidden variables” theory, rather fit well with the electric model universe. This theory held that “there were characteristics of particles that we haven’t discovered or measured yet, but once we did, we’ll find that the actions of particles are really deterministic and not governed by chance!” Moreover, the theory of relativity deals with matter as if its only significance is the bending of space with gravity.
Do you know any opposite theory or Einstein’s main competitor?
In contrast, the electric universe is explained from the subatomic level, through the macro levels of the earth scales and then into the planetary, then stellar, until even the universe itself is accounted for. This is accomplished by the proposition that it is electrical structure of nature that forms all matter from subatomic levels to the amazing shapes we see in deep outer space.
foto: http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/171964main_image_feature_784_ys_4.jpg
The flow of current between stars and galaxies can be proved by the existence of magnetic fields that such flow would generate. Magnetic fields network through space in all dimensions, and through all the matter in it in the form of stars and galaxies.
It is scientifically accepted that magnetic fields can only be generated by electric currents. So for such extensive networks across space, there has to be considerable amounts of electrical energy flowing through space. The basis of conventional cosmology lies in Einsteinian Relativistic Mechanics.
Can you agree that our universe can be some sort of cable?
foto: http://www2.dupont.com/Plastics/en_US/assets/images/News/robotic_cable_ehi.jpg
This meant that all conventional cosmology is based on Einstein’s ideas that completely ignored everything connected with electricity.
This throws all the ideas like the Big Bang Theory, the expanding universe, the inflation theory into disarray, as most of man’s knowledge about how the universe works is based on electricity, and all these ideas do not address electricity in their making. So, even the popular concepts of black holes, neutron stars, etc that are based on geometrical calculations (that Einstein himself felt inadequate), now stand hollow and wanting for conviction.
Do you think all those theories could be simply wrong?
Conventional cosmology explained black holes as points of infinite concentrated mass that spewed large amounts concentrated energy in deep space. Black holes were said to suck everything including light into itself, and therefore couldn’t be seen.
foto: http://www.instructables.com/image/F5ZI8LAFZQ1GQO9/Make-Your-Own-Black-Hole-Fabricator.jpg
So the existence of black holes could be postulated as such, and because we couldn’t see it, we couldn’t disprove them. Stephen Hawking himself suggested that certain kinds of black holes spewed matter out of their galaxies in jets.
However, the electric universe model proposes that the energy we see concentrated in these events that are attributed to black holes, can be explained by the confluence of electrical energy from different parts of the galaxy or from even outside the galaxy.
foto: http://cache1.asset-cache.net/xc/1171581.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FD21519490BBBF95A67BD4DDA8050180AD238C715206A27165E30A760B0D811297
The analogy is made to the light bulb, which when switched on, lighting up in your house, although the energy source was generated hundreds of miles away. Do you believe in parallel universes?
foto: http://www.eko-samorzadowiec.pl/img/2010/ekologia/aktualnosci/kraj/_big/light-bulb-idea-hand.jpg
A significant characteristic of certain galaxies are the double radio sources on either of them, a feature predicted by Hannes Alfven but unexplained to this day by conventional cosmologists.
The next major stellar phenomenon that is a bone of contention, between the two schools, is the pulsar. Pulsars are objects in deep space that emanate pulses of light and radio activity.
What is remarkable about this emanation is that the pulses are extremely fast, being just milliseconds apart. If you picture a lighthouse beam that rotates around 360 degrees before it reaches your eye a second time, the pulsar is like a throbbing strobe light that rotates something like 300 times a second. This would be something like the speed of a dentist’s drill.
foto: http://adk.astronet.pl/images/Pulsar3.jpg
A normal star cannot possibly rotate at such speed, therefore it had to be theorized again that the structure of such an astral body had to be composed of neutrons packed tightly together, in other words a neutron star.
foto: http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/neu_star.jpg
Therefore, a neutron star was one that was so dense, and held together so well, that it could indeed rotate at that rate. This is where, the proponents of the electric universe model, vociferously oppose the theory. Brandishing the principle of ‘island of stability’, in nuclear chemistry, they emphasize that the star would fall apart instantaneously if neutrons were packed so densely.
foto: http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/foxneutronartwork.jpg
They offer a counter proposal that in a commonly known situation of electrical transmission lines, uncontrolled pulses ping-pong back and forth. Apparently, this is what happens between a set of binary stars that are connected by plasma. They act like capacitors that store charge. This can be recreated in a laboratory in the form of a relaxation oscillator. So the phenomenon of producing a pulse every few milliseconds is as easy as a student’s lab experiment.
What is your opinion on this matter ?
Do you know any opposite theory or Einstein’s main competitor?
ReplyDeleteOne of the Einstein’s main competitors worth mentioning can be Max Abraham who first formulated a comprehensive gravitational field theory in 1912, thus challenging Einstein to integrate his own considerations based on the equivalence principle into a coherent theory as well.
Can you agree that our universe can be some sort of cable?
Our universe is so complex and immense that it can take any form it wants. Our universe is constantly changing therefore I think that sometimes it can take form of a cable and sometimes it can take any other form. Since I am not a rocket scientist I cannot say for sure what form the universe has.
Do you think all those theories could be simply wrong?
It is not possible for a human being to get to know what really happened in the past. Whatever theories we will come up with there is a big chance that these theories will simply be wrong. However based on scientific examination and facts we know about the past we can assume which theories are more probable.
Thanks to the knowledge we acquire from different particles that reign in our universe such as neutron stars we can get to know our universe better and better. Even though the universe remains still undiscovered and unknown, such knowledge helps us better understand how our universe works and in the future possibly learn how the universe came into existence and what are its limits. It is possible that in the nearest future thanks to our knowledge about neutron stars we will be able to solve the riddle of universe.