The Wrong Cosmology in detail. Unpacking the Lambda CDM Standard Model

I am hosting an article published: October 31, 2024 3.05pm SAST by Prof. Konstantinos Dimopoulos of Lancaster University. This article represents the Standard Model or Lambda CDM Model of cosmology.  However, I put forward that this standard model is garbage. It is not only fundamentally flawed, but wrong on basically every account. 

It follows logically than when your base assumptions are wrong then all the reasoning that follows which is based on those assumptions is also likely to be wrong. Each assumption has its own post on my blog (search "assumptions in science").

Here is their wrong story:

 How did everything begin? It’s a question that humans have pondered for thousands of years. Over the last century or so, science has homed in on an answer: the Big Bang.

This describes how the Universe was born in a cataclysmic explosion almost 14 billion years ago. In a tiny fraction of a second, the observable universe grew by the equivalent of a bacterium expanding to the size of the Milky Way. The early universe was extraordinarily hot and extremely dense. But how do we know this happened?

Let’s look first at the evidence. In 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that distant galaxies are moving away from each other, leading to the realisation that the universe is expanding. If we were to wind the clock back to the birth of the cosmos, the expansion would reverse and the galaxies would fall on top of each other 14 billion years ago. This age agrees nicely with the ages of the oldest astronomical objects we observe.

The idea was initially met with skepticism – and it was actually a sceptic, the English astronomer Fred Hoyle, who coined the name. Hoyle sarcastically dismissed the hypothesis as a “Big Bang” during an interview with BBC radio on March 28 1949.

This is article is part of our series Cosmology in crisis? which uncovers the greatest problems facing cosmologists today – and discusses the implications of solving them.

Then, in 1964, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected a particular type of radiation that fills all of space. This became known as the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. It is a kind of afterglow of the Big Bang explosion, released when the cosmos was a mere 380,000 years old.

History of the universe

NASA

The CMB provides a window into the hot, dense conditions at the beginning of the universe. Penzias and Wilson were awarded the 1978 Nobel Prize in Physics for their discovery.

More recently, experiments at particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) have shed light on conditions even closer to the time of the Big Bang. Our understanding of physics at these high energies suggests that, in the very first moments after the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces of physics that exist today were initially combined in a single force.

The present day four forces are gravity, electromagnetism, the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. As the universe expanded and cooled down, a series of dramatic changes, called phase transitions (like the boiling or freezing of water), separated these forces.

Experiments at particle accelerators suggest that a few billionths of a second after the Big Bang, the latest of these phase transitions took place. This was the breakdown of electroweak unification, when electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force ceased to be combined. This is when all the matter in the Universe assumed its mass.

Barred spiral galaxy NGC 1672

Edwin Hubble discovered that galaxies were moving away from one another. NASA, ESA, and The Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-ESA/Hubble Collaboration

Moving on further in time, the universe is filled with a strange substance called quark-gluon plasma. As the name suggests, this “primordial soup” was made up of quarks and gluons. These are sub-atomic particles that are responsible for the strong nuclear force. Quark-gluon plasma was artificially generated in 2010 at the Brookhaven National Laboratory and in 2015 at the LHC.

Quarks and gluons have a strong attraction for one other and today are bound together as protons and neutrons, which in turn are the building blocks of atoms. However, in the hot and dense conditions of the early universe, they existed independently.

The quark-gluon plasma didn’t last long. Just a few millionths of a second after the Big Bang, as the universe expanded and cooled, quarks and gluons clumped together as protons and neutrons, the situation that persists today. This event is called quark confinement.

The Sun

The early universe was extremely hot and dense, much like the centre of the Sun. NASA/SDO

As the universe expanded and cooled still further, there were fewer high energy photons (particles of light) in the universe than there had previously been. This is a trigger for the process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis (BBN). This is when the first atomic nuclei – the dense lumps of matter made of protons and neutrons and found at the centres of atoms – formed through nuclear fusion reactions, like those that power the Sun.

Back when there were more high energy photons in the universe, any atomic nuclei that formed would have been quickly destroyed by them (a process called photodisintegration). BBN ceased just a few minutes after the Big Bang, but its consequences are observable today.

Observations by astronomers have provided us with evidence for the primordial abundances of elements produced in these fusion reactions. The results closely agree with the theory of BBN. If we continued on, over nearly 14 billion years of time, we would reach the situation that exists today. But how close can we get to understanding what was happening near the moment of the Big Bang itself?

Alice experiment

The Large Hadron Collider’s Alice experiment can generate quark-gluon plasma. Maximilien Brice / Cern, Author provided (no reuse)

Scientists have no direct evidence for what came before the breakdown of electroweak unification (when electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force ceased to be combined). At such high energies and early times, we can only stare at the mystery of the Big Bang. So what does theory suggest?

When we go backwards in time through the history of the cosmos, the distances and volumes shrink, while the average energy density grows. At the Big Bang, distances and volumes drop to zero, all parts of the universe fall on top of each other and the energy density of the universe becomes infinite. Our mathematical equations, which describe the evolution of space and the expansion of the cosmos, become infested by zeros and infinities and stop making sense.

We call this a singularity. Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity describes how spacetime is shaped. Spacetime is a way of describing the three-dimensional geometry of the universe, blended with time. A curvature in spacetime gives rise to gravity.

But mathematics suggests there are places in the universe where the curvature of spacetime becomes unlimited. These locations are known as singularities. One such example can be found at the centre of a black hole. At these places, the theory of general relativity breaks down.

Panchromatic view of galaxy cluster MACS0416

The universe cooled as it continued to expand. NASA, ESA, CSA, STScI, J. Diego (Instituto de Física de Cantabria, Spain), J. D’Silva (U. Western Australia), A. Koekemoer (STScI), J. Summers & R. Windhorst (ASU), and H. Yan (U. Missouri).

From 1965 to 1966, the British theoretical physicists Stephen Hawking and Roger Penrose presented a number of mathematical theorems demonstrating that the spacetime of an expanding universe must end at a singularity in the past: the Big Bang singularity.

Penrose received the Nobel Prize in 2020. Hawking passed away in 2018 and Nobel Prizes are not awarded posthumously. Space and time appear at the Big Bang singularity, so questions of what happens “before” the Big Bang are not well defined. As far as science can tell, there is no before; the Big Bang is the onset of time.

However, nature is not accurately described by general relativity alone, even though the latter has been around for more than 100 years and has not been disproven. General relativity cannot describe atoms, nuclear fusion or radioactivity. These phenomena are instead addressed by quantum theory.

Theories from “classical” physics, such as relativity, are deterministic. This means that certain initial conditions have a definite outcome and are therefore absolutely predictive. Quantum theory, on the other hand, is probabilistic. This means that certain initial conditions in the universe can have multiple outcomes.

Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), as observed by the Planck mission.

Tiny differences in the CMB tell us about the age, expansion and contents of the universe. ESA and the Planck Collaboration

Quantum theory is somewhat predictive, but in a probabilistic way. Outcomes are assigned a probability of existing. If the mathematical distribution of probabilities is sharply peaked at a certain outcome, then the situation is well described by a “classical” theory such as general relativity. But not all systems are like this. In some systems, for example atoms, the probability distribution is spread out and a classical description does not apply.

What about gravity? In the vast majority of cases, gravity is well described by classical physics. Classical spacetime is smooth. However, when curvature becomes extreme, near a singularity, then the quantum nature of gravity cannot be ignored. Here, spacetime is no longer smooth, but gnarly, similar to a carpet which looks smooth from afar but up-close is full of fibres and threads.

Thus, near the Big Bang singularity, the structure of spacetime ceases to be smooth. Mathematical theorems suggest that spacetime becomes overwhelmed by “gnarly” features: hooks, loops and bubbles. This rapidly fluctuating situation is called spacetime foam.

Black hole

At singularities, such as at the centres of black holes, the classical theory of relativity breaks down. NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Jeremy Schnittman

In spacetime foam, causality does not apply, because there are closed loops in spacetime where the future of an event is also its past (so its outcome can also be its cause). The probabilistic nature of quantum theory suggests that, when the probability distribution is evenly spread out, all outcomes are equally possible and the comfortable notion of causality we associate with a classical understanding of physics is lost.

Therefore, if we go back in time, just before we encounter the Big Bang singularity, we find ourselves entering an epoch where the quantum effects of gravity are dominant and causality does not apply. This is called the Planck epoch.

Time ceases to be linear, going from the past to the future, and instead becomes wrapped, chaotic and random. This means the question “why did the Big Bang occur?” has no meaning, because outside causality, events do not need a cause to take place.

In order to understand how physics works at a singularity like the Big Bang, we need a theory for how gravity behaves according to quantum theory. Unfortunately, we do not have one. There are a number of efforts on this front like loop quantum gravity and string theory, with its various incarnations.

Spacetime foam

Near the Big Bang singularity, spacetime takes on a structure similar to foam. NASA/CXC/M.Weiss

However, these efforts are at best incomplete, because the problem is notoriously difficult. This means that spacetime foam has a totemic, powerful mystique, much like the ancient Chaos of Hesiod which the Greeks believed existed in the beginning.

So how did our expanding and largely classical universe ever escape from spacetime foam? This brings us to cosmic inflation. The latter is defined as a period of accelerated expansion in the early universe. It was first introduced by the Russian theoretical physicist Alexei Starobinsky in 1980 and in parallel, that same year, by the American physicist Alan Guth, who coined the name.

Inflation makes the universe large and uniform, according to observations. It also forces the universe to be spatially flat, which is an otherwise unstable situation, but which has also been confirmed by observations. Moreover, inflation provides a natural mechanism to generate the primordial irregularities in the density of the universe that are essential for structures such as galaxies and galaxy clusters to form.

Theory vindicated

Precision observations of the cosmic microwave background in recent decades have spectacularly confirmed the predictions of inflation. We also know that the universe can indeed undergo accelerated expansion, because in the last few billion years it started doing it again.

What does this have to do with spacetime foam? Well, it turns out that, if the conditions for inflation arise (by chance) in a patch of fluctuating spacetime, as can occur with spacetime foam, then this region inflates and starts conforming to classical physics.

Alan Guth

Professor Alan Guth, from MIT, describes inflation as a theory of the ‘bang’ of the Big Bang. JUAN CARLOS CARDENAS / EPA IMAGES

According to an idea first proposed by the Russian-American physicist Andrei Linde, inflation is a natural – and perhaps inevitable – consequence of chaotic initial conditions in the early universe.

The point is that our classical universe could have emerged from chaotic conditions, like those in spacetime foam, by experiencing an initial boost of inflation. This would have set off the expansion of the universe. In fact, the observations by astronomers of the CMB suggest that the initial boost is explosive, since the expansion is exponential during inflation.

In March 20 of 2014, Alan Guth explained it succinctly: “I usually describe inflation as a theory of the ‘bang’ of the Big Bang: It describes the propulsion mechanism that we call the Big Bang.”

So, there you have it. The 14 billion year story of our universe begins with a cataclysmic explosion everywhere in space, which we call the Big Bang. That much is beyond reasonable doubt. This explosion is really a period of explosive expansion, which we call cosmic inflation. What happens before inflation, though? Is it a spacetime singularity, is it spacetime foam? The answer is largely unknown.

In fact, it might even be unknowable, because there is a mathematical theorem which forbids us from accessing information about the onset of inflation, much like the one that prevents us from knowing about the interiors of black holes. So, from our point of view, cosmic inflation is the Big Bang, the explosion that started it all.

9/11: Footage From The Pentagon Parking Lot Released

____________________________________________________________________

Footage from the Pentagon Parking lot from September 11, 2001, finally released. Frames have without doubt been removed; this is clear despite the poor quality of the recording. Despite all of this chicanery, it still seems clear that whatever hit the Pentagon was not a commercial airliner.

It always amazes me that in some of the most fiercely controlled airspace in the world, nobody seemed to notice a commercial passenger plummeting towards world changing disaster.o

Once

The Real Reason The West Hates Putin Will Surprise Most People

During the 20th Century the Soviet Union produced many significant social and technological achievements and many innovations. Soviet military technology in some areas, particularly defense systems like the Soviet S300 (which STILL outperform the latest U.S. Patriot ground to air system by some margin) were coveted worldwide.  It also had the world's second-largest economy, By 1970, the Soviet economy had reached its zenith and was estimated at 60 percent of the size of the United States in terms of the estimated commodities (like steel and coal). Its oil and gas reserves were, and still are, vast, with certain sectors unmatched globally.

The Soviet Armed Forces comprised the largest standing military in the world. An NPT designated state, it possessed the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, a statistical title that Russia still holds today. 

The period from the 1970's onwards marked a consistent decline for the U.S.S.R. The reasons for it are mired in an unsatisfactory narrative which prevents any real understanding of affairs, and that same propagandistic narrative persists to this day, even the "red scare" component despite the fact that todays Russian Federation has abandon communism.  With that in mind, I would make the case that it has actually gotten worse despite manifesting once more in a flavour that reminds me of the Cold War despite a few small cosmetic changes. That narrative is stuck. It's the "Capitalism VS Communism" distraction. A polar one-or-the-other fantasy method of summing up a situation typically has about as much nuance as a "Good VS Evil" children's cartoon, the type that insists on finishing every episode with a moral lesson for kids delivered by the hero.  

Cast your mind back to any Cold War era TV montage, with clips of President Reagan yelling "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!".  This was not so much an organic pop culture dynamic as our sense of nostalgia will try to persuade us.  It was a repeated meme, early memetic engineering in the days where social engineering was used sparingly. It is, nonetheless? A form of "Divide and Rule". 

Here is my detailed history of the evolution of this fascinating tactic, and trust me, it's a lot more interesting than you think. 

In the 1990's things reached rock bottom in the former Soviet Union. Gangsterism and suicide were on the rise as Western Capital Finance vultures descended onto (and into) the newly available carcass. By that I mean the reduced remains of the former U.S.S.R. The new "Free Market Economy" simply did not have the maturity to evolve any internal oversight structures able to function as defense mechanisms from the external economic hitmen.  

More problems were found to emerge internally since the new open economy only benefitted a handful of oligarchs. Well, a few oligarchs along with the Russian mob who rose to international notoriety pushing out more settled international outfits with previously unseen levels of violence. The results on the economy any society were severely traumatic and to this day Russians are motivated by political participation shaped by the single and overpowering need to never again have their fate at the disposal of special interests whom they do not understand or trust.

NA.T.O. was at this point defunct.  The fall of the Soviet Union should have seen it retired, since the official reason for its existence was no more.  The real (unofficial) purpose of the Trans-Atlantic arms manufacturers club was to expand the MIC grift from the U.S. tax base to the entire Western tax base. It follows logically. The more people, the more taxation available to be plundered.  You still need an enemy to justify a threat response, but that need was only apparent to me in the shorter term since they were cooking up the "War on Terror" for that and it was decided to rather feed on the Soviet corpse and make sure it did not re-emerge as a legitimate threat. After all, perceived threats could be more safely sold to the public. N.A.T.O. saw its chance in the 1990's for acting on its secret expansionist agenda, all the while refusing the new Russian Federation even so much as an option to join, which not many people even know about. For the largest arms dealers in the West, selling maximum arms requires maximum enemies, and terror threat being cooked up from the Middle East wasn't quite ready. 

So the situation in the new Russian Federation was not looking good.  Whichever way you slice it there were serious problems, and greedy, calculating forces had put into action a series of events that were supposed to balkanize the territory, leaving its economy plundered.  It was to become a Western vassal in every possible sense. Without being overly dramatic, the once great nation stood on the precipice of doom.

Enter Putin.

For the sake of brevity let's look at the highlights reel only. Russian annual household income increased from an average of $800.00 p/a to over $30 000.00 during the course of Putin's leadership. During the same period, the West (while asleep at the wheel) found itself suddenly and depressingly involved in corporate state capture and economic plunder, with random woke agendas shoved down their throats for good measure.

By the time the 2008 economic crises was being resolved by Obama blatantly robbing taxpayers to bail out the banks, Russians were instead witnessing state crackdowns on corrupt oligarchs, multinational corporations who were known to disregard public health were ejected from the country.  Globalist financial interests and foreign meddling were no longer just causing financial disaster, they had collaborated with intel agencies and were involved with actual psyops.  Case in point is whereby sewing discontent in Georgia they had been funding a separatist movement that at one point was a major threat.  Well, this type of thing needed to be nipped in the bud, and it was. It was ruthlessly crushed by the new Russian leader who it appeared did not get the script.

This upstart had gotten it into his head that his policies would be shaped in the national interest. 

Under Putin jobs, law and order, culture, identity and pride were slowly restored. Efforts to destabilize the territories bordering the Russian Federation from within and externally were managed, less notorious but still corrupt oligarchs and the mob were brought to heel. Syria was basically rescued from Western and Saudi supported terrorists by Russia, forming a bond and affinity between the two nations.  The Russian President has obtained a cult like status in some sectors for resuscitation of the nation's economy under the most hostile conditions unimaginable.

This is no small feat. I picked up long before there was any traction for it in alternative media discourse that any plan for Russia to succeed would involve neutralizing threats that were actively seeking to cause it harm.  It was not Russia that was naive and too trusting of the West by this point, it was the Western leaders who were surely thinking that this one was in the bag naively believing the naivety of Putin, of this I am certain even though Putin to this day will not admit it for reasons of political expediency.  If you don't believe me then take a look at my reasoning at the time and consider how it played out.  There is only one scenario that makes sense, and it makes a lot of sense.  I have elaborated in quite a bit of detail exactly what the plan was and also regularly reported on its success as well as regularly pointed out the failure of the Western leaders to come to terms with strategy that appeared, at least to me, to understand that success would not be possible unless key strategic Western hegemonies were disarmed of the financial and military weapons it possessed, so long as there was intent to do harm to Russia. Select the "Russia "or "Putin" labels below this post or follow the links I have embedded in this post, the important recent ones being here, here and here.

To this day the plan is still not grasped, even by the alternative media, judging by what I am hearing about "War of Attrition" as if it were only a battle tactic in the recent Ukraine vs Russia conflict which is really a proxy war Russia is waging against N.A.T.O.  Reasons for the slow Russian advance are analyzed in depth, they discuss how hard the ground is and the winter freeze, waiting for Ukraine's counter-offensives to run out of steam, the fact that they are focused on the Donbass for humanitarian reasons or the belief that Putin is secretly holding out for a peace deal.

All he is doing is demilitarizing NATO!

Let's be serious for a second here, Putin couldn't care a flying stuff about any peace agreement with any of these snakes in the grass, even if he ultimately enters into one, it will be against a background where Russia controls the variables that decide whether Ukraine ever become a threat again.  Trust, viewed as unrealistic by Putin, would not be required, so why would that be important?  Part of the reason for the invasion was to eliminate the need for trust and rather be in control of outcomes viewed by Russia as an existential threat. It's noteworthy that Putin does take seriously any pressure exerted by its allies, particularly BRICS nations, that is something to be mindful of, especially since the architecture of the new global payments system is something Putin spends far more time on than the war. Russia has the BRICS presidency this year and at the end of October in Kazan a summit is being held where vital technical discussions around global payments and security are to be ironed out.

Regarding the lead up to war, Putin observed the outsourcing of Western manufacturing to China and elsewhere, and he modernized the Russian MIC to ensure they were prepared to win in output of artillery in a race for escalatory dominance knowing Western stocks run on a "just in time" logistics and stockholding policy since their MIC is purely bottom line in structure.   He also has a very clear grasp of the political appetite for expensive wars on the voting public and know in Russia the population does not see defense at  war profiteering and support would only grow when engaging on military spending if it is to fortify Russia against her enemies.  His calculus of political damage, expense, threat posed by advanced N.A.T.O. weapons systems and the logistics/industry of war being able to produce and sustain

This was happening the whole time that Russia was trying work with his "partners" in the West, and it upset Russians he was using such terms for those trying to destroy him.  In the background do you not think the move to establish BRICS, stockpile gold, dump US Treasuries, corner the oil and gas markets by planning output with OPEC Nations like the Saudis, destroy the Petrodollar, provide support to Iran/ Africa/Syria/The Houti's etc. Make no mistake about it, survival meant disarming the aggressor.

Because once more the West is being played, it is the West that is STGILL BEING NEUTRALISED, disarmed of its weapons, artillery, its public appetite for war by Russia.  Putin knows the west has outsourced its manufacturing  

The perception among those paying attention is that with Putin at the helm the Russian Federation had done an about turn from the naive victim it was after the Cold War collapse. The Russians learned the hard way. Now they have outplayed the West in every arena. They outplayed the criminal plunder puppets who extort as much from their people as possible, eroding the manufacturing and industrial heart of the West with vulture capitalism fostered by the globalization of war, agriculture, syndicated media and finance. Putin has protected his economy from such vultures, invigorated its manufacturing base, tied its currency to energy and gold while ditching debt-based holdings of an increasingly suspect promise to pay, the USD treasury bonds. 

Russia has been a guiding light in the formation of BRICS providing the global South with a demonstration that resistance IS NOT futile and that we are stronger together. Militarily Russia is patient and has learned from the past. In the Ukraine proxy war, the entire NATO arsenal lies as a smoked ruin on the Ukraine countryside as the West turns its focus to aiding a genocide currently being committed by its ally Israel.  

Putin has not only defeated the West against all odds, but he has also done it while they tried to destroy him, somehow succeeding during that chaos to create the kind of trajectory the Western tax bandit globalist neoliberal cabal could only dream of.

They live in fear of being defeated despite holding all the cards only to have the man they demonized succeed at every aspect of their failure. There can be no defeat more comprehensive and no justice more in line with karmic sentiment than that.

And that backstory should allow the case to make itself.   The real reason the West hates Putin has nothing to do with freedom, democracy or prosperity because that is precisely what they have taken from the West, and no amount of projection will convince Russians otherwise, they believe their lying eyes and in a cultural quirk do not distinguish between projection and confession. All the data is transparent and clearly reflects my analysis as does everyday reality for every Russian I have spoken with. The demonizing of Putin is so far removed from reality, and it requires such overt and shameless lying that there was never any risk of it being taken seriously in Russia, and citizens were beginning to keep a keen eye the foreign affairs escapades of the US alphabet agencies and its department of state.

It was duly noted that the spy era rigor and excellence had vanished from the US intelligence community and armed forces.  The objectives of all discretionary spending on national budget issues was motivated by greed and corruption.  Without a peer competitor or threat, the vast resources dedicated to prevailing in the US/USSR contest of influence, all of those assets had to reassess their focus.  None were prepared to forfeit their funding and each would instead find new arenas to ply their covert strategy of classified operations.

What followed was an endless series of expensive, bloody insurgent or proxy wars or direct invasions.  They mainstream media at this point was also fully captured and persisted with its reporting of these wars as failures, ill thought out and executed with no apparent regard for any objectives, means to achieve them or exit strategies.  This is nonsense of course.  These wars were by far the most successful wars in history when seen through the lens of a criminal who has just removed all oversight, accountability and due process from the US Apparatus of state.  No short term victories, long and expensive, provide cover to covert black ops, enrich the MIC contractors, crush all free markets with sanctions, all democracy with globalization, all prosperity with austerity, all sovereign states with open border nightmares, all energy policies with IPCC pseudoscience, all health policies with mandates to make refusing state medication illegal and reclassifying your blood as the for-profit plaything of big pharma.  Russia by contrast has moved in the opposite direction.  Even Russian press have noticed this.

Despite the fact that there is no such thing as government money, only taxpayer money, civil servants in the US had transformed into a freshly emerged civil overclass.  Its former boss, the US taxpayer, was now but a minion and his money through a sense of megalomaniacal entitlement, would no longer be spent maintaining his roads or being invested in the future of national health or education.  Public spending policies would now be up for auction and each bill passed in Washington would be available to the highest bidder.  The polite term for such a system is a "lobby system" and in true Orwellian fashion conventional wisdom will explain how it is a system designed to give voice to the voiceless.  To make sure the little guy is heard.  In reality of course the opposite is true.

In short, despite the thirty years of reasoning I have given, in essence there is one major reason the West hates Putin: It is under his leadership that Russia has been on the opposite course of the West. That is what it comes down to. That is an almost scientifically rigorous way of cutting to the point.

In Defence Of The Electric Universe

Electricity in space means electromagnetism must join gravity to replace the failing Standard Model

 Mainstream Cosmology rejects the Electric Universe premise that electric current can exist in space in a meaningful way.  By meaningful I mean it plays a major role in the morphology and dynamics of all that matter we see up there.  A role that the Electric Universe (EU) proponents claim only increases with scale. The Establishment surrounding the space sciences is already arranged around principles that would be toppled like a line of dominos if these currents were validated since the consequences of a fundamental principle being replaced is that it takes with it an avalanche of established dogma.  More importantly it takes down the bureaucracy involving any related research and academic institutions based on them.  They have skin in the game and can be characterized as being almost ideologically opposed to the idea of electric current in space. They don't see it as possible in a grand and ordered fashion as causative agent, they occasionally acknowledge the current of galactic jets and occasionally even give a reading, but those articles are quickly swept under the rug and for a long time they will be mum on the topic other than the occasional comment which doesn't go beyond a few isolated discharges, usually regarding the gas giants and their relationships with their moons.

From where I am standing, the real myth is one of a charge neutral universe or the perception that an overall charge is required, rather than dynamic and evolving charge separation creating all opportunity for life, form and function. With that in mind, Please be on the look-out for understated sarcasm in the words to follow.  I have opted for that tone in my writing because it is the only way I can imagine communicating how absolutely commonsense and well evidenced the Electric Universe positions are and why those who lazily conflate these positions with actual nonsense thinking such as the "flat earth" movement                                                                                                         are all guilty of the groupie mindset in the argument from authority. Anyone who has taken the time to  without being drawn into having to justify each in detail in this article which would make it one thousand pages, that is what my site if for and you will have no problem finding material on each fundamental principle. 

Now, the term "Electromagnetism" exists for a reason.  That reason is quite simply that electricity and magnetism are 2 sides of the same coin, and no means is apparent to me that is available allowing cosmologists to make calculations of these fields without calculating current, not since Hannes Alfven realised that the biggest mistake of his life had been the idea that "frozen in" fields could be used in the Magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) calculations that he invented and won the Nobel Prize for.  He ended up suggesting cosmologists AVOID using his mathematics due to space plasmas indifference to the beauty of the calculations and refusal to co-operate.

More fundamentally I struggle to see how to introduce magnetic fields (now discovered EVERYWHERE in space) into the most important cosmological calculations, the Friedman Equations, without electric moving charge and messing up their figures. Regarding the current aspect, it must be noted that even in remnant magnetism in iron or loadstone, it needs an electrical circuit with + and - charge separation and equalization for orientation to establish its polarity when first becoming magnetized, that is why we can work out pole shifts by the polarity of magnetized rocks or loadstone.  

THERE IS NO SUCH THING A MAGNETIC CHARGE, ONLY ELECTRIC CHARGE.  

This is overlooked by certain repeat-offender cosmologists who will always insist the magnetic fields, somehow "frozen in "without the benefit of magnetizable iron or moving charge, are what induce the currents, and everything works "like a dynamo", always pure theory, always lurking unseen in the middle of some or other celestial body like a big genie of the lamp granting electromagnetic wishes.

It often seems they go out of their way to avoid any topic that reveals just how obvious the evidence is supporting EU principles and rather than debate they ignore or worse.  Sometimes they debunk based on awful strawman arguments and a horrible, misunderstood theory they put forward as EU.  That's how the nonsense rumors get out, and once people discover that you think the Electric Universe is at a minimum on the right track, there is always someone who will say something along the lines of "So you don't believe in gravity?" They will of course say this even though they are standing next to me....and we are both standing firmly on the ground rather than floating off into space.... somehow.  

Sometimes there is a look of bemused anticipation on their faces, perhaps they are expecting me to wow them with some obscure case to be made for why the downward force we all experience is simply an illusion? You know, like a party-trick gag or a flat earth argument. 

Instead, I'll say something that must be a bit of a letdown in that regard, such as "Gravity exists whether I believe in it or not". If I want to make it known that such a question is actually irritating and I don't enjoy having accusations thrown at me even if posed as questions, I'll answer a question with a question. Ideally it should be with a similarly loaded question that is designed to lead them to the discovery that their assumption/question stems from their misunderstanding rather than my own, such as "Who the hell wouldn't believe in gravity?

If it is someone I know who values the scientific method but perhaps just forgot for a moment that I am not a complete idiot, I may say something like "Not only DO I believe in it but I can get a direct measurement in two minutes using my bathroom scale, and report instead that it is consensus science that is the party that does not believe in the force of gravity).  Nothing like a twist in any plot to keep it interesting. 

So, my weight, that's direct evidence, not in degrees of curvature but in KG.  Ignoring this evidence of gravity being a mutually attractive force between massive bodies would involve saying it doesn't exist. This is so even when qualified in a proud voice stating that it is because actually an imaginary fabric of spacetime (which uses gravity to explain gravity) tells matter how to behave.  

How exactly it tells matter anything is beyond me since no means is put forward.   Presumably it does so by using its only property, a concept (geometry) instead of any force or method to exchange energy since no means is put forward to explain how such a fabric exerts material influence over matter directly.  As far as I know the concept of mathematics does not have a driving force influencing the material world with material properties through mass as gravity does operating as a force, or how it mitigates these material properties once a moving body has motion, i.e. energy and this concept is now tasked with dealing with momentum and inertia.  

Also, there is no evidence for any "fabric" or "manifold", and the other aspect of it (the four coordinate system of 3 spatial dimension plus time) has been around forever.  It's called a "rendezvous" and was never dependent on the genius of Einstein since it is self-evident.  That's the problem with "thought experiments", they are oxymoronic (or is it just moronic? I get confused sometimes).  Put another way, it is EITHER a thought OR an experiment, it can't really be both, let's face it. That's kind of the whole point of experiments.  

Another thing about the fabric of Spacetime is that it is not falsifiable.  These are not minor details.  If you don't believe me then look up the definition of "Pseudoscience".  Are you picking up what I'm putting down?

So, let's be serious here for a minute. Are we really supposed to drop the notion that gravity is a force and replace it with pseudoscience? Because that's what imagined ideas in theoretical physics, such as the "fabric of spacetime" become after a cultural shift snatches them from where they belong (as a theory) the moment we insist it's our best science, trumping direct evidence and direct measurements.  That's right, gravity itself may also be a theory but it does not presuppose 2 steps and 2 theoretical models/mechanics/dynamics/ sets of structure. It only deals in the tangible reality of mutual attraction because that is what it ultimately manifests as and that is what is measured.  There is a word for that: Force.

Are you beginning to get a sense of just how much projection is going on here?  The reputation of the EU model is the projected guilt by thousands of space science establishment groupies throwing shade on effective and efficient solutions.  It is treated as fringe simply to reduce the threat factor and avoid having to engage simply because the Electric Universe angle does address (and very often solves) the most perplexing Lambda CDM mysteries.  The strawman debunking clips that pop up on the internet are very weak and serve only to dish up lies that can be seen to be debunked.  There is never any debate because there is always and only one outcome, and it is not pretty for the standard model.

This scenario describes the public understanding of science community and perhaps academics and administrators.  Publicly and culturally, this is damaging but it's not unusual from any group protecting access to public funding, tenure, reputation or perhaps those looking to conceal nepotism or advance their careers. As a result, silly misunderstandings in the broader public are baked into every aspect of EU. It's not all malice, part of it is surely stemming from assumptions resulting from theoretical science having crossed over firmly into La-la Land.

I would need to write an entire book to address all of these, and that is something I am seriously considering doing, because in doing so the opportunity to clear up misunderstandings is only half the benefit.  The other benefit of these clarifications is exposing the baseless sorcery posing as astrophysics when Lambda CDM Cosmology has framed the way the physics is understood and therefore expressed mathematically. Ever since Maxwell's equations and later Tesla, society has built power grids and a whole computerized world of technology though the mastery of the extremely well tested science of electromagnetism, whether electrical, electronic, electrostatic or electrodynamic.

I put it to you that this trumps evidence-free theoretical science with no industry or engineering based on it and which cannot be reproduced in labs.  We need to leave our emotional attachment at the door when it comes to black holes, a big bang, dark matter, strange matter, dark energy and all the other borderline supernatural phenomena the standard model has cultivated over the years.  No new physics is required, known physics has simple explanations for all of these and more.  What does the guiding principle of science, Occam's Razor, tell us?

Not every earth day is the same precise 24-hour period, and our year is also influenced in the tiniest way by certain external factors.   What's amazing is that there is a consistent correction towards mean on all these anomalous disturbances, meaning that whatever is mitigating celestial motion in accordance with the stability our simulations cannot achieve, it's also a major part of why the universe is as it is today.  We get to understand that without puzzling over how a single unbalanced force (gravity greates)

I've touched on the gravity issue and how the EU obviously accepts it.  They simply commit the unforgivable sin of proposing that a single unbalanced force cannot manifest a stable, well-ordered universe of filamentary structure and the cosmic web, it would quickly descend into chaos.  And that is exactly what simulations show, even at densities where matter is dense enough for gravity to dominate, like right near the surface a trillion-ton rock such as a planet or moon.  What leaps out at us in a gravity only universe is not only that there is only 4% of the required matter to generate enough of it, but because even at 100% the morphology would still be completely wrong.  Gravity forms spheres, it does not form filaments, a torus or discs.  A complex spiral arm rotating structure bears no resemblance to an orbital system. Even orbits themselves need a mitigating force for long term stability and to explain how the earth jumps back into its revolution and rotation timeframe since each day is not exactly the same length of 24 hours (see image above). It can be disturbed, i.e. after CMEs and solar flares it is affected by tiny amounts.  

Gravity is much more influential at planetary scales where matter is dense, compared to galactic scales where gravity play no role at all.  However a single unbalanced force relying on the precise orbital mechanics our rocket scientist calculate for space missions is so unlikely as to basically be impossible, a mitigating force is required and the resonance or potential gradient relating to charge keeps a stable and consistent influence on the orbit and rotation of planets and moons.

Thats barely touching the gravity issue or explaining the basics of why magnetic fields and self-contained plasma magnetic entities can explain, or actually REQUIRE the morphology of the universe to be as it is.  Another main tenant of the Electric Universe is that in order for these other forces to contribute there must be a facilitation for charge movement and charge separation in space, in other words, electric current.  This is either partially accepted by some in the mainstream, usually with no appreciation of the extent or consequence of it, or it is rejected outright for reasons that I can only explain as a source of what almost seems like self-satire. 

You should make up your own mind. Perhaps you can detect the comedy value in the mainstream rejection of the Electric Universe claim essential to their principles, i.e. that there is electricity in space. Do so with your own assessment of their objections summed up in the below 4 points.  It reads like satire but ultimately this is the absurd reality right now.

1.  Despite the Universe being filled with radiation which ionizes all the gas out there to the state of plasma (even if only 1% ionized plasma conducts), Plasma has the charged particles to some degree liberated from the usual stable atomic state so to some degree made up of charged particles, in ions and electrons.  Groups of flowing charged particles always result in an electric current with a magnetic field around it. Only electric current produces magnetic fields, hence the term "electromagnetism".  Remember that there are no electric currents in space – but there are however magnetic fields oddly enough, they are EVERYWHERE and their origin is an enduring mystery which nobody has ever been able to solve.
2. The Solar Wind is charged particles. They move against the suns gravity and keep accelerating beyond the orbit of Neptune in the suns vast field, the same way we accelerate charged particles on earth in our colliders, using magnetic fields. Coincidently. the Definition of Electric Current is moving charged particles; therefore, apart from near the planets, no electric current is present in the solar system, just moving charge and magnetic fields....
3. We use electricity to produce radio waves, microwaves, visible light, X-rays and Gamma Rays on Earth. All of these are found in space, each created by different and borderline supernatural sources since no electric current can exist in space.
4. Charged particles from the sun interact with our ionosphere to form very specific Birkeland Currents called Aurora. MOVING charged particles arrive from the sun in the solar wind which we measure, and thus far cannot find any evidence of electric current in space.

So far, we have only dipped our toe into these waters, new data is coming in literally every day supporting EU principles and getting standard model proponents to contemplate starting from scratch because every other new observation "breaks science" (Actually science is fine, it's their model being falsified on a weekly basis that breaks their hearts and channels denial based scorn into the competition through projection) a book covering this topic would practically write itself!

Click HERE for this site's homepage.

A full list of sources and citations for Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology, Particle Physics and Theoretical Physics can be found HERE. If you are curious and want an extensive database of scientifically rigorous alternatives to the tired collapsing current dogma, then you are in luck. 

Dramatic Shift in Global Power Balance

 

1) Turkey To Join BRICS

To understand the shifting sands of global power with regard to the rise of BRICS you can search this site or look for the tag "BRICS" going back several years.  The last post I made on this topic reflected some dramatic changes and is essential reading since the implications are tremendous and must be appreciated for what they are.

The inclusion of Turkey is just as significant, not for economic reasons but for geographical and military reasons.  Turkey has the second largest standing army in NATO after the US and houses some of the US nuclear weapons.  Turkey has been a NATO anchor and its trusted role regarding strategic weapons positioning has always been a factor since the drama of the Cuban missile crises where Turkey played a major role.   Since the defeat of NATO in the Ukraine proxy war in which the West has been waging against Russia, many have predicted the beginning of the end of the trans-Atlantic alliance, and this move surely signals that this is a reality that the next decade may present.  Furthermore, the potential for Turkey to host future Russian oil pipelines also gets a boost if European demand ever returns to Russia and soon the nation could be holding the EU hostage with its finger on both energy and refugee flow providing tremendous geopolitical leverage.

In terms of geopolitics there has been transformational change coming so quickly that it's difficult to assess the full implications, but once the dust settles, we will be very cognoscente of the fact that the Anglo-American dominated international climate is a totally different place where nothing is the way it used to be. The emerging powers of BRICS, lead by Russia, China, India and a host of new additions are determined to change the flavor of the "Rules Based Order"(a euphemism for US hegemony characterized by bullying, lies and a general lack of respect for the sovereignty of nations and the wellbeing of their citizens).  So far, the evidence shows that nations of the Global South and Middle East consider the diplomacy, basic manners and respects shown by the new power center to be a far more appealing option.

2) The Demise of the Petrodollar

In the next few days, the Petrodollar is up for renewal by the Saudis.  All signs point towards them not renewing it.  Here Here is a quick outline of the Petrodollar nuts and bolts along with a great little synopsis of its history. The reasons in their entirety are complex but simply put Saudi Arabia has moved into the BRICS sphere of influence and faced with the rise of other currencies being used for foreign trade it makes no sense to tie into one currency and only sell in USD.  Also, China has a 1.4 billion population, its growth prospects are tremendous, as are Indias.  Russia and Saudi Arabia can also work together to corner the global oil market, making OPEC somewhat redundant, and Russia has already stepped out of the dollar system, the nation has pioneered an oil for gold and oil for Rubles program using its own hydrocarbon reserves to protect its economy from US sanctions. For more on the Petrodollar you can click the "Petrodollar" tag or enter the word in the search bar. 

The drop in dollar demand is going to impact hugely on the US economy and affect the ability of the Anglo-American establishment to export inflation through the oil price in USD to the Global South.  Strap yourself in, we could be in for a bumpy ride!

The 25 Most Cited Think Tanks

 

Here is a resource for you to bookmark.  The links will take you to the pages of each organization on the little sis database where you can find out who their leadership are, their directors, board members, members, donors, who their benefactors are, who their members donate to, which publications they are behind and much more.  You can also see which members each has in common with the other and where their networks interlock with powerful banks, media and intelligence agencies.   A good working understanding of how relationships are connected in this way will give you a sense of the interests and agendas behind all political, geopolitical, economic, strategic and public policy events that appear in the news stories in the world today.  It is the secret weapon of any investigative journalist or informed citizen looking to get a step ahead of the game in current affairs and also serves as a means for any private person to be informed about the potential threats posed to the safeguarding of their personal liberties and constitutionally protected rights.  Most importantly I would propose that any activist looking to resist the undue concentration of power in the hands of the few first map out these relationships to best target their points of focus.

From Most cited (at the top) to position 25. Each organization on this list has considerable power and influence. This power is wielded principally in an "under the radar" fashion.

1	Brookings Institution   Major Washington think tank
2	Council on Foreign Relations   US foreign policy think tank
3	American Enterprise Institute   Largest neoconservative think tank
4	The Heritage Foundation   Conservative think tank
5	Center for Strategic and International Studies   Foreign policy think tank founded 1962.
6	RAND Corporation   Nonprofit global policy think tank
7	KFF   Non-profit focuses on major national health care issues, as well as U.S. role in global health policy
8	Center for American Progress   Democratic insider think tank started by former Clinton administration official John Podesta
9	Cato Institute   Libertarian think tank based in Washington, DC
10	Urban Institute   Public policy think tank; economic and social policy research
11	Hoover Institution   Conservative think tank at Stanford
12	Manhattan Institute   conservative think tank
13	New America   Centrist Think Tank
14	Economic Policy Institute   The Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit Washington D.C. think tank.
15	Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
16	The Carter Center   human rights organization based in Atlanta founded by former President Jimmy Carter
17	Carnegie Endowment for International Peace   Elite foreign policy research and discussion organization
18	Lexington Institute   Conservative / libertarian think tank
19	Public Policy Institute of California   The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California.
20	University of Virginia Center for Politics   The Center for Politics was founded in 1998 by Larry J. Sabato at the University of Virginia.
21	The Washington Institute for Near East Policy   American pro-Israel think tank based in Washington, DC
22	Center on Budget and Policy Priorities   Liberal policy organization specializing in federal budget issues from a low-income perspective.
23	Inter-American Dialogue   U.S. center for policy analysis, exchange, and communication on issues in Western Hemisphere affairs.
24	The Aspen Institute   Elite policy discussion group
25	Center for Economic and Policy Research   The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) was established in 1999 to promote democratic debate on the most important economic and social issues that affect people's lives.