Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Abandoning Geocentrism and Gravity

The Big Bang hypothesis is a geocentric hypothesis since, according to Big Bangers, redshift indicates that the universe is receding away from the Earth in every direction. It is time to abandon geocentrism and gravity.

Thomas Wilson: From Ptolemy to Dark Matter - Part 1.

Fundamental assumptions have an overwhelming influence on how we interpret and discuss new observations.

One such assumption that shapes our accepted view of the Universe is that gravity dominates the motion of galaxies.

It is difficult to change these types of fundamental belief systems. For example, in the time of the Hellenic astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus, it was a widely held fundamental assumption that the Earth was the center of the cosmos. In fact, there were many good reasons to believe it. The stars, the sun, and the planets visibly move across the sky and the Earth obviously feels very solid and fixed.

According to the best thinkers at the time, the heavenly bodies were positioned on invisible spheres with as many as five spheres per planet. By allowing for spheres within spheres, one could explain the retrograde movement of the planets. To its credit, much was explained with this world-view. With Ptolemy’s sophisticated use of epicycles, deferents, and the innovative introduction of the equant, the Ptolemaic system was very successful at predicting such things as the precession of equinoxes as well as planetary motion (more so than the Copernican system when it was first developed).

However, by the sixteenth century, Galileo’s observations of the phases of Venus were completely incompatible with the Ptolemaic system. Subsequently, Kepler’s prediction of the transit of Venus in 1631 was a great success for the heliocentric, Copernican view of the solar system.

Not to be unnecessarily provocative, but there are interesting similarities between the Ptolemaic paradigm and the current theories surrounding Dark Matter and galaxies. Just as there were good reasons to believe in invisible celestial spheres driving a Geocentric Model, there are reasons to believe in invisible spheres (called “haloes”) of dark matter surrounding galaxies.

It all has to do with how the mass of a galaxy is measured. One popular approach to compute galactic mass is the orbital method. In the orbital method, the rotational velocity of stars (the red shift of radio waves from hydrogen gas around the stars) is used to infer the mass of the galaxy. The math is relatively straightforward: once the stellar orbital velocity (or “velocity dispersion” for the galaxy) and the distance from the center of the galaxy that contains the mass in question are measured, then it is easy to solve for mass. However, the math only includes gravity as the potential energy source for the system.

The problem that begets dark matter is as follows. When the mass of a galaxy with this gravity-only approach is derived, there is more computed mass than visible matter. That is, the sum of the mass of all the stars and visible dust in the galaxy is far less than the mass derived with the Orbital Method. If gravity drives the rotational velocity of the stars in the galaxy, then there must be hidden mass in the form of invisible dark matter. What if gravity is not the dominant force driving the rotational velocity of galaxies?

Today, asking this question is like asking a learned astronomer in 1550, “What if the Earth is not at the center of the cosmos?” Asserting that gravity is not a dominant dynamical force in the motion of galaxies is just as shocking to astronomers of our current time. However, there is good evidence that supports the notion that electromagnetic forces in plasma act on the cosmological scale.

Hannes Alfven (Nobel Laureate for his work in plasma physics), proposed that galaxies reside in immense, gyrating, Birkeland currents that convert large-scale electromagnetic forces into rotational energy in a galactic system. In turn, leakage currents in the galaxy are converted into rotational energy in star systems. Seminal work by Anthony Peratt (e.g. see Snell and Peratt, 1995) has shown that the flat rotational curve of galaxies is well modeled by plasma simulations without the need for dark matter. All the observations of the galactic core, the intense X-rays, gamma rays and rotational energies could be explained with sufficient current densities driving the galactic system (Peratt, 1986).

The typical flat rotational velocity curve of a galaxy does not indicate hidden dark matter mass, it indicates that another force is at work. This is why deriving the mass of a galaxy using equations that only include gravity as the source of potential energy leads to problems. Additional electromagnetic forces are at work that drive the galaxy like an electric homopolar motor (see a summary in Donald Scott’s book “The Electric Sky”).


BF said...

Challenging the nature of black holes

OilIsMastery said...

Thx BF!

Check this one out: An electrically powered binary star?

BF said...

More good stuff OIM, thanks a lot - its appears more and more knowledge is spilling over the dam walls build by the various establishments with the intention of holding it back.

Keep up the excellent work and don't let the ad hominem hurling chimpanzees grind you down.

Seth said...

I hadn't read that. Thanks!

Raptor Lewis said...

If gravity doesn't exist, then why don't we fly off into space? Is it centrifugal force?

Another thing, how can my blog interest you? You know way more stuff than I do.

OilIsMastery said...


I say that it is electromagnetism rather than gravity that holds us to the surface of the Earth.

And your blog interests me because I love dinosaurs.

Check this out: Dinosaurs and Gravity.

Raptor Lewis said...

Thanks for the link. I've added it to the links list on the right side of my blog.

As for the "Plants have mass" argument between you and Jeffrey, I've thought about it. I believe it depends on your perceptions on how plants interact with planet. Clearly, you did NOT mean what the planet ITSELF was made of. You were referring to the planet and life as a whole. In that case, I believ you are right. Plant DO add mass to the planet.

GMB said...

Given that these dogmatists with access to the radio-telescopes reckon that they can peer across to objects that emitted their light less than one billion years after the big bang......

... Well it stands to reason that if this is the case they are only going to be able to peer back in time in that way in one general direction.

Or else it implies that we are at the centre. I cannot see it any other way. If we can look back 12 billion years in one direction it stands to reason, that if we are at least one third the way out from the centre we ought not be able to look back in this way in all directions. But rather pretty much only in one direction.

Of course the stupid people will be saying, "ho ho. imagine the stars are on the surface of a big black balloon that is inflating...." and when they start 'jiving you with this cosmic debris' its time to stop them right there and remind them that there is no balloon and if there was we would not be on the surface of it but rather every observation would put us on the inside.

Now naturally I'm not trying to advocate the above to oilismastery or Louis who I hope will correct me if I am wrong in logic. But to explain these issues to the laity in order that they not be fooled by these obscurantists and obtructionists who are pretty much all on the public dime.

Jeffery Keown said...

"The Big Bang hypothesis is a geocentric hypothesis since, according to Big Bangers, redshift indicates that the universe is receding away from the Earth in every direction. It is time to abandon geocentrism and gravity."

Wrong. Every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe.

You imply the Universe had no beginning. Explain...

GMB said...

Hang on a minute Raptor. Think this through. You are being dishonest here. You are pretending to agree with oilismastery but putting words in his mouth by buggering with definitions.

So you are trying to deny the validity and even the likelihood that he is right in this underhanded and intellectually dishonest way.

Lets look at phytoplankton. They are plant life. If phytoplankton turns electro-magnetic energy and CO2 into plant matter, and if some of this energy is actually taking energy originating from outside the biosphere and turning it into matter....... well what happens from there?

... The next thing that happens is the phytoplankton gets eaten by zooplankton that craps or dies and you get carbon-rain falling kilometres to the bottom of the ocean.

Are we wishing away the oilismastery thesis on the basis that this carbon on the ocean floor is still part of the plant life?

No if energy has been turned into matter than the mass of the planet will be increasing. Thats clear enough. The idea is to try and see if this is correct. If the electrical energy is transferred into matter in some way or other.

GMB said...

Jeffrey you twit. I already explained why your dumbass point of view is wrong.

Raptor. I may have misread what you were driving at.

OilIsMastery said...


"Every point in the universe is moving away from every other point in the universe."

No. That is not what we observe. We observe galaxies colliding.

And not according to the so-called "Hubble law", cosmological redshifts, and the Big Bang hypothesis. According to that, every cosmological redshift is a distant point moving away from the Earth.

And blueshifts are alleged to be moving towards the Earth thus falsifying your erroneous claim that every point is moving away from every other point.

Anaconda said...


Harton Arp is the expert in challenging the conventional view of the meaning of redshift.

The major so-called evidence of an expanding Universe, at least in the way the "big bangers" believe it expands, is the 'redshift'. But Halton Arp has thoroughly falsified the "big banger" interpretation of 'redshift' by showing that higher 'redshifted' objects are in front of or connected to lower 'redshifted' objects.

Not only does this falsify the expanding Universe of the "big bang", but it also confirms the Plasma Cosmology theory that quasars are not some distant object, but likely proto-galaxies formed by ejection from older galaxies on the same line of galactic Birkeland currents.

OilIsMastery has posted on this topic several times.

@ Jeffery Keown:

You state and then ask: "You imply the Universe had no beginning. Explain..."

Plasma Cosmology subscribes to this view and I as well, that science can't know how the Universe started, or if it did start. It may well have "started", but science will never know.

Plasma Cosmology also maintains that to speculate on how the Universe started or if it did is a waste of time and misleads science into speculation that can't be proved and promotes an ideology that retards scientific advancement.

The "big bang" and it's corollary, derivative theories have frozen astronomy in a fruitless cul-de-sac.

The "big bang" requires an expanding Universe, but as stated before, the reasons the "big bang" was developed were dubious as concerns science:

"And to fill in some history for you: Georges Lemaître was a Catholic priest who came up with the "big bang" because he wanted to reconcile science and religion."

"George Gamow, another famous "big bang" proponent, had no compunction in describing the graphs of early conditions in the "big bang" as Divine Creation Curves. He sent the first copy of his book, The Creation of the Universe, to the then Pope."

GMB said...

Yes its a bit of a case of over-reach isn't it? To be expected to ask that question when there is simply no way to know the answer to that question.

Scientists, especially those on the public dime, ought to do the work and not engage in what amounts to theology. There are so many problems to work through which are currently and rationally within their grasp.

What we can say with certainty is that the universe is a lot older than 13.5 billion years. Thats a small answer. But thats probably it for the moment.

Quantum_Flux said...


Anonymous said...

You imply the Universe had no beginning. Explain...

From a scientific POV this is not a scientific statement as science, sensu-strictu, is limited to human observation of natural phenomena, etc.

I suppose the idea "the universe had no beginning" might fall into metaphysics, and then, as a real scientist (title du jour) I am ignorant.

OilIsMastery said...

Louis is correct and this is known as Kant's First Antinomy of Pure Reason.

Thesis: The universe has, as to time and space, a beginning (limit).

Antithesis: The universe is, as to time and space, infinite.

Both are false. Assuming the universe is an object of experience, which is debatable, neither statement is based on experience.

Jeffery Keown said...

Tell ya's what: Electricity keeps me in my chair, photosynthesis adds mass to the planet, there is no such thing as a black hole.

And: there is a massive conspiracy of scientists trying to keep secret all of these details, because overturning the most powerful body of evidence in history wouldn't sell books.

Not only that: These same scientists, who are bent on control of resources, equipment, experimentation and publishing, have indulged in massive censorship of scientists who didn't have the instrumentation and simulation technology we have today, because, well, you know... they're mean.

But wait! There's more! They also engage in retreads of prior theories with out so much as an apology. Those bastards!

But I'm not done yet! In truth, they know that the pet theories of crackpots and deniers are actually the true face of reality. Rather than embrace them, they censor them and cause an insular network of crackpots to form. This stroke of genius allows BIG SCIENCE to keep an eye on the nutcases.

Frankly, it's brilliant.

Anaconda said...


Why is the history of space exploration important in understanding the physical Universe?

Because it so powerfully demonstrates how Man's knowledge has expanded and how many ideas about space turned out to be wrong.

(I try and keep the quotes to a minimum because they should be an exclamation point to an argument not its core reasoning, but the history of space exploration is a subject where scientist's quotes perfectly illustrate the points raised.)

"Books written about the solar system before the advent of the space age could as well have been written in Latin or Greek, so dated do they appear to a contemporary reader." -- Zdenek Kopal, astronomer, 1973

Most of us don't remember the textbooks of the pre-space exploration age. Louis Hissink, possibly would, I remember some and it was primitive and mostly wrong, as it turned out.

Space was presented as a vacuum with islands of neutral matter isolated from each other.

Electromagnetic phenomenon?

Hardly mentioned at all.

So why should theories that projected that mostly wrong view of space still hold sway?

Yet, unbelievably they still do!

"The first decade of space research mainly concentrated on the exploration of space near the Earth: the magnetosphere and interplanetary space. These regions earlier were supposed to be void and structureless but we now know that they are filled with plasmas, intersected by sheathlike discontinuities, and permeated by a complicated pattern of electric currents and electric and magnetic fields." -- Hannes Alfvén, physicist, 1970

Alfven's summation has been confirmed without exception with every additional scientific expedition and mission to space.

So, you would think his theories of interstellar and galactic space would be given a high degree of credence since his theories in terms of near-space turned out correct.

And those scientists that held near-space to be a lonely vacuum with isolated "islands" of neutral matter would be in disgrace or at least humbled.

Such is not the case.

But the wheel of Man's understanding maybe turning:

"Seeds of active interest [in Plasma Cosmology] are now present within most of the major divisions of NASA, in plasma science laboratories, and in numerous universities." -- Michael Goodspeed, journalist, October 2008


Because the scientific evidence keeps confirming the ubiquitous presence of electromagnetics in space.

And why not, electromagnetics is one of the 'Four Fundamental Forces' of the Universe.

And the one force able to tranfer energy from one location to another in organized fashion.

Electromagnetics is the "Energy Transport" force of the Universe.

Anaconda said...


How does Man transport energy?

Mostly by electrodynamics, of course!

Yes, there is the transport of energy by traditional means: Ships carrying oil, trains carrying coal, and pipelines carrying oil and natural gas. But it is electricity, the energy source that fuels the technological 21st century, that carries our communications beyond this world into outerspace to our satellites and back to Earth.

It is electricity that gives structure and organization at the higher levels of Man's technology.

When you think about it, it really is truly amazing.

Why would it be any different with Nature than it is with Man?

Anaconda said...


@ Jeffery Keown:

You layout the indictment against those of us who think the current conventional understanding is wrong and needs to replaced by a new understanding and a new paradigm.

Essentially, you string a number of ideas together to discredit this new understanding and the people who propose it.

This is a old and familiar technique that has been used everytime a "new understanding" has threatened the status quo down through history.

And you do a good job.

But let's consider the ideas one at a time -- an analysis, if you will, and see how it shakes out.

Gravity: No one is saying gravity doesn't exist. (OilIsMastery calls "gravity" a 'myth' to tweak the noses of those who describe "gravity" as a relation of space, time, and matter, and to highlight the fact that science doesn't know what gravity is, not that it doesn't exist.)

Jeff, do you really believe "gravity" is a geometric relation or function of space, time, and matter? Or does it make more sense that "gravity" is an intrinsic property of matter independent of time and space?

Because describing "gravity" as a product of electromagnetics is simply an attempt to get back to investigating the intrinsic properties of matter than cause it to have the force of "gravity", nothing more.

Plants take energy from the environment (electromagnetic energy from the Sun) and used it to organize and structure elements and molecules already on the planet (I disagree with OilIsMastery on that one).

"Black holes" are 'exotica' that were hypothesized or imagined because science accepted an all-encompassing theory that limited the structural 'Forces' of the Universe to only one force: gravity.

Then it was found that the conventional understanding of gravity didn't work out, so they changed the conventional understanding of gravity, so they could admit the 'exotica' they had dreamed up to save their theories which relied on the single force of gravity.

(An interesting side note: Einstein specifically incorporated Maxwell's Equations of electromagnetics, into General Relativity, but subsequently, his followers specifically ruled out of any significant role for electromagnetics in the structure of the Universe. How does that make sense???)

No, there is no "conspiracy," simply group-think that happens in all groups that have a material interest in seeing a continuation of the status quo.

Actually, today's astronomy is not "the most powerful body of evidence in history", that's why the Plasma Cosmology inspires defensiveness so readily among conventional astronomers.

Jeff, in your mind, is it part of human nature to want to protect what provides your livelyhood?

Is it part of human nature to be reluctant to admit mistakes?

Is it part of human nature to "re-craft" ideas, rather than to admit the ideas were completely wrong?

Jeff, who are the deniers?

Those that rule out any significant role for a fundamental force of Nature in the structure and dynamics of the Universe, or those that think electromagnetism should be considered side-by-side with gravity and then let the chips fall where they may, and explicitly don't rule out the force of gravity, but want science to determine by observation and measurement what those respective roles are for electromagnetics and gravity in the structure and dynamics of the Universe.

And, so far, in the exploration of near-space, electromagnetics has been observed to play a major role.

So, again, Jeff, I ask the question: Who are the deniers?