Introduction to the
What is wrong with present-day accepted astrophysics
It is not scientific. In today's world many people characterize
themselves as being 'scientists'. Only those who always carefully
follow the scientific method are deserving of that title.
establishment astrophysics fails the test in several ways.
The Empirical Scientific Method
Scientists are distinguishable from artists, poets, musicians, and
others in that they use what is known as the 'scientific method'. It
is not that 'inspiration' or 'the muse' is not valuable in science,
it is - but it is not the starting point of what we call science. In
the process called the scientific method a true scientist will:
Observe nature - carefully record what is seen.
Seek patterns in the observed data - put numbers on the data - fit
equations to those numbers.
Generalize those equations into a word description of the process -
this is a hypothesis.
Carry out experiments and/or gather independent data to see how well
the hypothesis predicts future observations and results. This is
called "closing the loop" on your hypothesis.
Reject, or modify the hypothesis if the experiments show it falls
short of success in these predictions.
Only after the results of several experiments have been successfully
predicted by the hypothesis, can it be called a theory.
If two different theories predict a given phenomenon equally well,
the simpler theory is probably the best one. This principle is
called Occam's Razor.
Theories can never be proven to be correct - some other mechanism
entirely may be the cause of the observed data. But theories can be
disproved if they fail to predict the outcomes of additional
experiments. Such theories are termed to be falsified.
scientific method as described above is called the empirical method.
The Deductive Method
As an alternative to the empirical method, there is a method of
deriving theories from assumed generalizations about the universe.
This is called the deductive method. In this process one starts with
a "law of nature" or "obviously correct" generalization about the
"way things work" and deduces (reasons out - derives) its
consequences in detail.
A hypothesis arrived at via this method is
promoted to the status of being a Theory if a large enough body of
experts 'accept' it. Thus, in this method, a vote of the experts
determines if a theory is correct. Once such a theory has been
accepted it is not easily rejected in light of conflicting evidence;
it is, however, often modified - made more complex - and,
unfortunately, new data is often selectively chosen to support it.
The selection and publication of only the data that support the
accepted theory is expedited by the "peer review system".
experts who have accepted a given theory control both the funding of
future research and also what gets published, there is little chance
for conflicting viewpoints to develop.
Some hypotheses, when presented by august, well established
scientists, are given credence without anyone questioning whether
the hypothesis has been developed using the scientific method. Yet
in most cases it is not difficult to check whether or not the
scientific method has been used correctly.
For example, consider the
"There are gnomes in my garden that always make
themselves invisible when anyone tries to observe them."
conceivable experiment or observation could falsify that statement.
This is evidence the hypothesis comes from a pseudo-scientific
source. Legitimate theories must be falsifiable.
The Problem Faced by Modern Astronomy is that Experiments Are Not
Because the stars are light years away, we cannot hope to be able to
go there and perform experiments on them. Until relatively recently
even the planets were out of our reach. Thus, cosmologists never get
to complete the scientific method. We cannot 'close the loop' in
But, if we cannot test our hypotheses, how can we reject
or modify them?
The answer, of course, is that astrophysicists, more
than those in any other branch of science, must be exceedingly
careful to continually examine their hypotheses in light of any new
data. It is the contention of the author of these pages that they
have not been doing this.
Einstein was a purely theoretical physicist - he never went near a
physics lab. He conducted only 'gedankenexperimenten' - thought
experiments - in order to arrive at his general theory of relativity
(GR). This is a perfect example of the deductive method at work. Its
use is exceptionally dangerous in an area like cosmology wherein it
is difficult to falsify any theory. Now that the GR Theory is
accepted by establishment astrophysics, any new data (such as
photographs of the astronomical object known as the "Einstein
Cross") are discussed only within the framework of this complicated
The images of the four small objects in the Einstein Cross when
looked at only from this viewpoint, are considered to be supporting
evidence for the GR Theory. However, they could just as well be
interpreted as being evidence supporting a much simpler cosmological
Evidence contradictory to the accepted Big Bang Theory, such as
images of connections between objects that have widely different red
shift values, are dismissed as being mirages.
False Assumptions in Astrophysics
Most of today's accepted astronomy/cosmology is a set of deductively
arrived at hypotheses precariously based on two false assumptions:
Electrical fields, currents, and plasma discharges are not important
in space. Only gravitational and magnetic fields are important.
If the light from an object exhibits redshift, the object must be
speeding away from us. And its distance from us is directly
proportional to that speed.
Both of these assumptions are demonstrably wrong. They have been,
and continue to be, contradicted by actual observations of the sky.
Those observations tell us that,
The universe is highly electrical in nature.
Redshift is more a measure of an object's youth than its velocity.
The continued refusal of astrophysicists to re-examine their
hypotheses in light of these new observations is the focus of these
Invisible Entities Invented To Patch Up Failing Theories
The theories that have sprung from these faulty, overly complicated
mathematical models have given birth to such arcane notions as:
curved space, neutron stars, WIMPs (and now WIMPZILLAS), MACHOs,
several different types of black holes, superluminal jets, dark
energy, and magnetic field lines that pile-up, merge and reconnect.
All of these inventions are fictions put forth by astrophysicists in
desperate efforts to defend their theories when faced with
None have ever been observed or
photographed. Many of them are demonstrably impossible. But their
existence is repeatedly invoked to explain new observations and
measurements that contradict the enshrined theories of modern
astronomy without resorting to the use of electrical principles.
We continually hear statements such as,
"There must be a black hole
at the center of that galaxy." (Otherwise we cannot explain its
level of energy output.)
"There must be invisible dark matter in
that galaxy." (Otherwise we cannot explain how it rotates the way it
"Ninety nine percent of the universe is made up of dark
energy." (Otherwise the Big Bang Theory is falsified.)
be made up of strange matter." (Otherwise we might have to look for
an electrical explanation).
We are also asked to believe that two
objects (like galaxy NGC 4319 and its companion Markarian 205) are
not connected together even though we have photographs of the
So, we are told not to believe in the things that we can
see, but that we should believe in the existence of the magic
entities that their theories require - even though we cannot see or
Astrophysicists Denigrate Outsiders - Then Quietly Adopt their New
There have been several instances in the past when the astronomical
mainstream has long rejected an idea that is later accepted. There
is usually no public disgrace for the in-group who were on the wrong
side of the issue.
When, after being viciously denigrated, the
validity of a new idea becomes inescapably obvious, a few years go
by, and then we quietly hear:
"Well, Everyone has known for a Long
Time that this (the new idea) was always true."
An example of this
is Hannes Alfvén's discovery of plasma waves.
recently discovered property of plasmas is now being wrongly used by
astrophysicists to explain away all sorts of (what is for them)
enigmatic phenomena - such as the temperature inversion in the Sun's
In a few years, perhaps we will hear:
"Well, Everyone has known for
a Long Time that quasars are not extremely distant, and red shift is
more a measure of the youth of an object than its recessional
velocity and distance. No one said for sure there ever was a Big
Bang. It was just another false theory. Everyone has known for a
Long Time that electric currents flowing in plasmas produce many of
the mysterious observed solar and cosmic phenomena."
And we will not
hear of machos, wimps, neutronium, dark energy, and
field lines from any serious scientist ever again.
Time will tell.
Will the founders of the Electric / Plasma Universe Theory be
acknowledged as having been the pathfinders they are?
Or will lesser men quietly adopt these ideas without giving credit
to their originators and then claim them to be 'well known'?
The following pages discuss some of the people, observations, and
ideas, that challenge the false assumptions that mainstream science
refuses to re-examine.
When you read them, remember that any single
unanswered challenge of this sort is enough to bring down the
pseudoscientific magic show that modern astronomy/cosmology has
become - like a house of cards.