🌌 Galaxy Formation: Exploring Different Cosmological Frameworks 🌌

🌌 Exploring Galaxy Formation: Mainstream, Plasma Cosmology, and Steady State Theory 🌌
In this video, we dive deep into the fascinating world of galaxy formation, exploring various models and theories that aim to unravel the mysteries of our universe. From the widely accepted mainstream model and its variations to the intriguing concepts of Plasma Cosmology and the Steady State Theory, we cover it all.
🔍 What's Inside:
Mainstream Model: Learn about the standard model of galaxy formation, including hierarchical clustering and monolithic collapse.
Alternative Spin-Offs: Discover models like the Inside-Out Disk Formation and Cold Flow Accretion.
Plasma Cosmology: Explore the pioneering work of Hannes Alfvén, Eric Lerner’s plasmoid model, and Anthony Peratt’s simulations.
Steady State Theory: Understand Halton Arp’s model and its integration into Narlikar's steady state cosmology.
🎥 Why Watch:
Comprehensive Overview: Get a clear and concise explanation of various galaxy formation theories.
Visual Illustrations: Engaging visuals to help you understand complex concepts.
Comparative Analysis: See how different models stack up against each other and what they imply about our universe.
🔔 Subscribe for More:
If you enjoyed this exploration and want to dive deeper into the cosmos, don't forget to subscribe and hit the bell icon for notifications on future videos.
💖 Support This Channel:
Your support is crucial for us to continue making quality content.
Patreon: / seethepattern
PayPal: www.paypal.me/seethepattern
Merch: shop.spreadshirt.co.uk/see-th...
or CRYPTO Donations:
Bitcoin: bc1q5cctzkc9tt6hmqueddfk5dlvcpr6y45gx7td04
Ethereum: 0x2df869b96d4b42c461635B2955fAF72C79eA445D
Dogcoin: DRUEVXavwhbavuhgYJV2AXo8N6tC2zB5za
🎥 Other Relevant Videos/Series:
Hannes Alfvén Series: • Hannes Alfven
Eric Lerner's Plasmoid Model: • From Experiment to Qua...
Anthony Peratt Series: • Anthony Peratt Plasma ...
Halton Arp SeriesL • Halton Arp
📚 References:
1. *Mainstream Model and Variations:*
- White, S. D. M., & Rees, M. J. (1978). Core condensation in heavy halos: a two-stage theory for galaxy formation and clustering. *Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 183*(3), 341-358. (ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/197...)
- Silk, J. (1977). On the fragmentation of cosmic gas clouds. I - The formation of galaxies and the first generation of stars. *The Astrophysical Journal, 211*, 638-648. (ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/197...)
2. *Plasma Cosmology:*
- Alfvén, H. (1981). Cosmic Plasma. *Astrophysics and Space Science Library*, Vol. 82. (www.springer.com/gp/book/9789...)
- Lerner, E. J. (1991). The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe. *Vintage Books*. (www.amazon.com/Big-Bang-Never...)
- Peratt, A. L. (1992). Physics of the Plasma Universe. *Springer-Verlag*. (www.springer.com/gp/book/9781...)
3. *Steady State Theory:*
- Hoyle, F., Burbidge, G., & Narlikar, J. V. (2000). A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality. *Cambridge University Press*. (www.cambridge.org/core/books/...)
- Arp, H. (1987). Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies. *Cambridge University Press*. (www.amazon.com/Quasars-Redshi...)
4. *General Resources and Further Reading:*
- Kroupa, P. (2012). The dark matter crisis: falsification of the current standard model of cosmology. *Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia, 29*(4), 395-433. (ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/201...)
- Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. (2008). Galactic Dynamics (2nd Edition). *Princeton University Press*. (press.princeton.edu/books/har...)
00:00 Introduction
00:48 λCDM
03:13 λCDM Criticisms
05:16 Monolithic Collapse
05:34 Inside-out Formation
05:57 2-Phase Formation
06:16 Cold Flow Accretion
06:58 MOND
07:45 MOND Criticisms
08:38 Other Modified Gravity Models
09:43 Plasma Cosmology
10:05 Hannes Alfvén's Galactic Circuit
13:17 Limitations of the Model
13:53 Eric Lerner's Plasmoid Quasar Model
17:08 Anthony Peratt's Galaxy Model
21:47 Limitations and Criticisms
23:24 Plasma Cosmology Summary
24:26 Halton Arp's Galaxy Model
25:50 Criticisms of the Model
26:35 Conclusions

[@YiOughta]

Wal Thornhill's work is often overlooked.

[@TheBelrick]

Not amongst the aware.

[@chbu7081]

Because it's worthless.

[@TheBelrick]

@@chbu7081 How badly did your vaccinations hurt you? Please share graphically. Tell us how you felt after getting fully boostered yet have gotten sick many times from covid

[@Jollyprez]

@@chbu7081 Can you cite any of Thornhill's physics that you dispute? I'll wait.

[@davestorm6718]

Arp is correct about one thing: the CMB connection to a Big Bang Event is purely speculative.

[@TheBelrick]

All cosmology is based on speculation treated as fact. Denying us the stars

[@yupyup6599]

the fact that they try to attribute anything to an event billions of years ago just blows my mind

[@chbu7081]

Arp was laughably and demonstrably wrong.

[@lawesty]

⁠@@chbu7081you are so far from the current understanding it’s laughable, Stephans quintet is 100% undeniable proof that he, Arp, was right.

[@Lutz_H]

Excellent work! Thanks Gareth.

[@stevenwhite8937]

It took launching a satellite into the Birkeland current at our poles to detect it…. What makes you think Birkeland currents should be detected in space without being able to measure them in-situ? We couldn’t even detect the Saturn/sun or Jupiter/Io connections until we had probes in place….

[@SeethePattern]

agreed it would be very tricky but any theory must be able to provide evidence. Either primary, ie. direct measurement (almost impossible in this case) or secondary. Now I would argue that the latter is possible but not easy. I have previously covered some secondary evidence that might hint at this but more work needs to be done to hunt down these clues.

[@stevenwhite8937]

@@SeethePattern well we do have evidence of filaments all throughout space, including linking galaxies…. Birkeland currents no doubt… I’d say we’ve already discovered them, they just call it the cosmic web and think it’s from Dark Matter instead of EM forces…. Incorrect, but it’s their story and they are sticking to it….

[@axelcodr]

amazing how so much potential still is so be explored!!! lovely work, great mind food!

[@shodan6401]

Gareth (forgive me if that is in any way incorrect) - I believe that it would be beneficial to your viewers to review some of the *major* problems with the CMB, and the resulting implications. Before I even learned of these critical issues, I have always said that it is impossible to know if the very low level radiation that has been measured is coming from the Earth itself, or our solar system, or our galaxy, as opposed to a remanent of the Big Bang. That is an unfortunate reality of the proximity of our satellites. Only after further examination did I learn that computational analysis, which divides the very low variations in temperature into different hemispheres, that no less than four planes generated by this segregation were found to be extremely problematic: Two of the four planes were exactly parallel to the plane of our galaxy; One plane was exactly perpendicular to the plane of our galaxy; And one plane strikes through the rotational plane of our solar system - which is impossible to ignore and chalk up to mere chance, particularly because our solar system was still nearly ten billion years away from formation at the time that the Background Radiation was emitted. This glossed-over and completely ignored contradiction to the claims of the CMB is so foundationally "universe shattering" to the single most referenced piece of evidence in support of the Standard Model, that within the halls of academia it is called, "The Axis of Evil". And yet, despite this glaring evidence that the CMB is not what traditional cosmologists claim, they push ahead as though nothing is wrong. Sailors so consumed with their confidence in their star charts that they have ignored that there is a hole in the boat. As much as this single data point is referenced, and the myriad of assumptions that stem from our assumed confidence in this metric, I think that a review of this measurement, stated as fact, is a highly worthy endeavor.

[@antondahr6792]

The CMB is proof of the aether. The whole reason for jumping to the Big Bang assumption was the denial of the aether. But of course the existence of the aether was never in doubt, how else would light and electro-magnetism work?

[@charliemihai5471]

The old model is ridiculous. Imagine 0+0 resulting in everything.. What's on stake ? Quoting Hannes Alfven: ,,..the underlying assumptions of cosmologists today are developed with the most sophisticated mathematical methods and it is only the plasma itself which does not 'understand' how beautiful the theories are and absolutely refuses to obey them.''

[@rangerover3960]

Love that quote!

[@helpdeskjnp]

“Grant them one miracle and they’ll handle/explain the rest…”

[@77GEEWHK]

Awesome! I think real science is about always questioning the theory rather than assuming we know everything. Great work Gareth ❤👍

[@rrickard2874]

MOND has left the room, and is now playing Intellevision somewhere with String theory.

[@douglasstrother6584]

In any discussion of Unified Theories, Gravity, Electromagnetism, and the Strong & Weak Nuclear Forces are taken as the four fundamental forces of nature. The first two are part of our everyday, macroscopic experiences. It's curious that Electromagnetism has been largely excluded from Cosmology. It might be a good time to crack open "Jackson" again!

[@rikimitchell916]

Your pieces are some of the best researched clips available, and I applaud the scope of your investigation. That being said, I would never hire you as a bouncer, you'll let anyone have a look in... the dominant theory of galactic formation is so flawed it's unbelievable.

[@SeethePattern]

yup I would make a rubbish bouncer but I do feel that no single model is correct so it is important to look and share with an open mind

[@raycar1165]

Excellent presentation, well done. Much ❤ Love 🌎🌏🌍☯️⚡️ World🌞Peace

[@esecallum]

Oh, dark matter, the cosmic clown that's had astronomers chuckling for a century, and there's still no sign of a punchline that makes sense. It's like they've been on an intergalactic wild goose chase for a hundred years, and all they've got to show for it is a bunch of cosmic whoopee cushions that keep deflating when they sit on them. Now, enter axions, the absurdity's absurdity. Astronomers, in their never-ending quest to turn the universe into a comedy show, have introduced these quirky particles into the cosmic script. It's as if they've decided to juggle flaming bowling pins while riding a unicycle on a tightrope that's on fire - you know, just to make the whole thing even more ridiculous. Picture this: Astronomers, with telescopes pointed at the void, staring blankly at the cosmic canvas, suddenly shout, "Dark matter, axions, and...um, other stuff, I guess?" as if they're naming random things from their grocery list and hoping it will magically make sense. It's like trying to play chess with a set of Scrabble tiles - chaotic and utterly incoherent. They've essentially turned the pursuit of knowledge into a century-long cosmic slapstick routine, where the punchline is eternally delayed, and dark matter is the banana peel that keeps astronomers slipping. Axions, in this carnival of chaos, are the cotton candy that's been flung into the crowd, sticking to everyone and making everything even stickier. So, here's to our persistent astronomers, who've transformed the cosmos into a never-ending cosmic stand-up show, with dark matter as the bumbling, pratfall-prone comedian. Keep the popcorn handy, folks; this spectacle of cosmic confusion shows no sign of a sensible ending anytime soon.

[@spiritsplice]

Reminds me of christianity saying "any day now" for 2000 years. Both are religious dogma to avoid obvious truths.

[@charliemihai5471]

Circe was an ancient Greek goddess who could hypnotize men, bring them, and turn them into animals -- taking their minds away, so that they could support and feed her. She was known as "Mother Circe," and her worship was brought to Scotland, in whose language Circe became "Kirk." and "Kirk" becomes "Church" in English. Most of the other false Gods are detailed in "Simulations of God, The Science of Belief " by John Lilly. The superstitious beliefs that used to be attached to the formal religions have in many cases simply been transferred to other objects, persons or events. Like in the case of the medicine who has taken on a saving, or messianic role. There is a sense in which medicine can be said to have displayed characteristics that have at various times characterised the religious Church: autocracy, centralization, the control and manipulation of people, censorship, propaganda, total obedience, infallibility, the destruction of heretics, the stamping out of individuality. All this, of course, has been done in the name of the general good, just as the church acted for mankind’s salvation. There are numerous churches. Church of Satan Church of Allopathy Medical Charity Churches Church of Politics Religious Churches including (Scientism) as Corporate Orthodox Science, for-profit & mind control

[@liamweavers9291]

Couldn't agree more... The 5D Minkowski Space Diagram - A New perspective Minkowski spacetime, traditionally conceived as a four-dimensional construct combining three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension, has been a cornerstone of modern physics. It elegantly integrates space and time, underpinning the theory of special relativity and providing a framework for understanding the propagation of light and causal relationships in the universe. However, a fresh perspective suggests that Minkowski spacetime might be better understood as a five-dimensional space, incorporating an additional temporal dimension. This novel view not only reinterprets the nature of time and information but also proposes a deeper connection with electromagnetic fields. Traditional Minkowski Spacetime In its conventional form, the Minkowski spacetime diagram illustrates the relationship between space and time using a light cone structure. The light cone divides events into those that can causally influence each other and those that cannot. Events inside the light cone are reachable by light signals from the origin, while those outside are not. This structure is essential for understanding causality in relativity. Minkowski spacetime is defined by its four dimensions: three spatial dimensions (x, y, z) and one time dimension (t). The spacetime interval, a measure invariant under Lorentz transformations, underpins the theory of relativity. This interval preserves the causal structure of events, ensuring that the laws of physics remain consistent for all observers, regardless of their relative motion. Introducing a Fifth Dimension: Universal Time (T) A novel interpretation proposes adding a fifth dimension to Minkowski spacetime, introducing the concept of universal time. This dimension represents a global, linear progression of time linked to the expansion of the universe. Unlike the relative time experienced by observers in different states of motion, universal time provides an absolute temporal backdrop against which all events can be measured. This is reminiscent of the coordinate time described by Einstein and the metric time in the context of the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) metric. The FLRW metric is used in cosmology to describe a homogeneous, isotropic expanding or contracting universe. It provides a standard measure of time (coordinate time) that tracks the expansion of the universe, progressing at a constant rate defined by the speed of light in a vacuum. This expansion is constant and linear, represented by the sides of the light cone in the Minkowski space diagram. In this view, relative time becomes the changing rate at which information is processed, dependent on energy density and gravitational influences. Dual Vortex of Electromagnetic Fields Reinterpreting the Minkowski spacetime diagram as representing the dual vortex of an electromagnetic field offers an intriguing geometric and topological perspective. Electromagnetic fields are described by Maxwell's equations, which govern the propagation and interaction of electric and magnetic fields. These fields are inherently linked, oscillating perpendicularly to each other and the direction of wave propagation, creating a helical or vortex-like structure. If we envision the light cone as a dual vortex, the two "vortices" could symbolise the electric and magnetic components of the field. The central axis of the light cone would represent the direction of wave propagation, with the vortices swirling around this axis. This interpretation aligns with the geometric nature of light and its interaction with spacetime, providing a unified way to visualise electromagnetic phenomena within the Minkowski framework. Implications of a Five-Dimensional Spacetime 1. Unified Temporal Framework: Introducing universal time (T) offers a consistent, absolute measure of temporal progression, providing a backdrop against which relative time variations occur. This could reconcile the relative nature of time in special relativity with a global temporal standard. 2. Geometric and Topological Insights: Viewing the light cone as a dual vortex highlights the geometric and topological aspects of electromagnetic fields, potentially leading to new ways of understanding their behaviour in different spacetime contexts. 3. Information Processing: This model considers energy as dynamic information and matter as static information. The speed of light as the maximum processing rate of the universe suggests that the expansion rate defines the ultimate limit for information transfer and causal interactions. 4. Mathematical and Experimental Challenges: Integrating an additional time dimension into the existing framework of relativity and field theory would require substantial modifications to mathematical formalism and empirical validation. The new theoretical approach must make specific predictions that can be tested against current and future observations. Conclusion The proposal of a five-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, incorporating an additional universal time dimension, offers a revolutionary way to understand the nature of time, information processing, and the interplay between electromagnetic fields and spacetime. This perspective challenges the traditional four-dimensional view and suggests that we might have been looking at the Minkowski spacetime diagram incorrectly. By reinterpreting the light cone as a dual vortex and considering the role of universal time as described by the FLRW metric, we open new avenues for theoretical exploration and a deeper comprehension of the fundamental structure of the universe.

[@theanimationlads7598]

Whole essay just to say absolutely nothing lmao

[@liamweavers9291]

@@theanimationlads7598 you have to read between the lines 😆

[@darrelfletcher8397]

Arp's variable mass makes sense if you understand that Planck Particle Pair density has increased over time, which supports Quantized Red Shift and increased gravity.

[@JoeDeglman]

At least there are now articles out verifying that magnetic fields play an important role in star formation. When plasmoids, or young galaxies, begin to form at harmonic nodes along currents in the Cosmic Web they begin to self-draw from the Cosmic Web and self- create their own polarity and plasma torus. The baryon or constituent quark model was debunked about 40 years ago. Evidence suggests that matter or neutrons are created from the Poynting flux ejected from the galactic core via the relativistic jets.

[@liamweavers9291]

The intrinsic charge and spin of particles, aggregated over billions of years led to the formation of galaxies. It's that simple!

[@barrydysert2974]

Excellent Excellent Excellent !!!

[@sputnick2012]

Awesome

[@philoso377]

The catch in Eric’s model is that there must be a preexistence of uniform north pointing magnetic field plus the cloud began with angular momentum … without root cause to those assumptions this model is incomplete. Such model may be easier to digest had we started with not just uniform B field but helical B and E fields intertwine into a force free plasma filament also known as Birkeland current a cross section size of no less than the cloud body. Uniquely uniform B field seems to be absent in the deep space. However plasma filament composing of e and b fields are distributed anywhere in the universe.

[@Critter145]

Laboratory experiments must be done to test all this.

[@ScienceReDiscovered]

I started my youtube channel today thanks to videos like yours

[@SeethePattern]

Welcome to the KZbin journey and all the best in your search for knowledge and understanding. Good luck :)

[@johnlord8337]

It is easy to understand the Electro-static (ES) and Electro-gravitic (EG) model regarding cosmic evolution. There are 3 Aether energy level particulates and 3 Matter energy level particles that are both electrical force and gravitational force, being alternating current, and the various sizes of Birkeland currents, that also are the agents for fusion. These are the 3 tensor bosinos and 3 tensor bosons that work with all Dark Matter and higher Matter particles in (EG) gravitational attraction. There is no electro-static opportunity for any higher accretion theory as even physics admits that ES can only achieve a 1 meter size of accretion and no higher. Only the EG model can validate the cosmic tension, Hubble tension, (Einstein tension) that provides the means for accretionary theory. All other theories are not theories, they are barely postulates without any axioms, hypothesis, and corrollaries.

[@johnlord8337]

There is no electro-magnetism. Say electro-gravitics and you will cleary define the objects, properties, and production of higher elements. The Aether sub-quantum tensor bosino particulates fuse Hydrogen up to Iron. The Matter quantum tensor boson particles fuse Cobalt to Element 118. As such, the photosphere of the stellar engine is composed of the Aether tnesor bosin fusion particulates, while the chromosphere of the stellar engine is composed of the Matter tensor boson fusion particles.

[@MrWolynski]

AGNs are young growing galaxies. They have bi-lateral outflows that are so strong they redshift into the radio frequencies, and are also called radio galaxies.

[@rockydogsdad]

He needs a video about light speed (c) NOT being a constant, but can be variable.

[@SeethePattern]

I have done one on a variable speed of light...

[@Vice81]

Thanks!

[@JoeDeglman]

The role of current inflow to a galaxy has been confirmed by the 'Keck Cosmic Web Imager' at Cal tech. 'Spiraling Filaments Feed Young Galaxies' July 01, 2019 "New data from the Keck Observatory show gas directly spiraling into growing galaxies" - Cal Tech

[@critical-thought]

Any theory that challenges the only yardstick for astronomy is always met with hostility. How else can they imagine they are measuring any distance between objects “out there,”

[@goidogoi]

You should have added/mentioned David LaPoint"s Primer Fields concept and his bowl shaped magnetism effect study on tthe galactic formations seen in space as part of Plasma Cosmology.

[@hannybenny7632]

Maybe EM creates the compression for universal galaxyformations ...

[@axeman2638]

well it can't be gravity, an uncontained gas cloud cannot compress itself into a solid by it's own gravity.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

Halton Arp: SEEN RED book page 197 says that there are in fact 7 red shiefts which are known with greater accuracy with plus or minus 3 or 4k/S - He says that for him this 7 red shifts are EPOCHS and seen them as epochs we do not need DARK MATTER. My guess is that this 7 red shiefts are levels just like a rainbow is ordered in 7 colors - after all earth as well is inside the cosmos.

[@tomladdus9264]

Any therory with Dark matter or black holes can immediately be tossed in the rubbish.

[@br3nto]

What about Vivian Robertson’s Rotating Photon particle model? He derives gravity and all sorts of subatomic and universal scale phenomena.

[@rikimitchell916]

The common theme amongst all of the foundational theory of the EU cosmology and current accepted theories is a failure to identify the mechanism of collapse or formation. Even birkeland failed to identify it. But fear not for the solution is at hand and requires no more information than that which is readily available to all. The righthand rule and conservation of angular momentum, which, when allowed to evolve naturally, causes kinks to form at regular intervals the same way a length of multi-strand cord will form a loop along its length when twisted and one or both ends due to a rotational differential along its length. These kinks will be 'dragged' thru the space surrounding the Birkeland current undergoing fibrillation and further kinking due to the same two mechanisms, Rh rule and conservation of angular momentum. As the process continues the Birkeland fibers will electrostaticly draw in dust and become the seed sites for star formation, which is also driven by the Rh rule and conservation of angular momentum. That's a start...

[@rxbracho]

I love how you challenge traditional views, something I often do as well. One question, do you have an opinion about Penrose's CCC? While it supports a version of a "big bang", it does away with inflation and even dark matter. Penrose himself loves GR, so it is a gravity-based model. Thanks again, I will take a refresher on the links you provide.

[@michaelstiller2282]

There was a super computer simulation done, with a big bounce mechanic. They concluded that not all the material in the universe makes it back to the event before it goes boom again, leaving a significant amount of the prior universe. So it basically didn't support the theory. But i don't think it concluded the matter. Lots of things to consider. But they made an effort. It was their best guess.

[@rxbracho]

@@michaelstiller2282 CCC is not a bounce model because it assumes a future of only radiation from "evaporating" black holes. I am not a physicist but if I understand Penrose correctly, something "leaks" into the next Aeon, the next universe, which decays over time and could represent the elusive dark matter. Inflation cannot be included in CCC, the expansion of the previous universe carries over as the necessary "inflation". I'm not even sure if the beginnings are from a single point, I think not. Anyway, I was only curious. Thanks for the reply.

[@SeethePattern]

He does have a slightly different way of looking at the universe and in particular how it evolves over time. I have only looked at it briefly, it might be worth a deeper look some time in the future but the reason I didn't cover it here is because he does not look at the specifics of the formation of galaxies he just relies on the standard model as far as I am aware.

[@michaelstiller2282]

@@rxbracho he goes on the fundamental idea that prior to the Big bang. There's infinite stuff causing the event which expands and decays into the same stuff. where there's a loss of time as a dimension causing a collapse and new big bang. It would suffer from the same outcome of the simulation as the universe is not homogeneous. And not everything would make it into the new big bang. Because what it is creating is an environment. Not the sum of all the parts.

[@rxbracho]

@@SeethePattern Yes, his thinking is gravity centric so I'm sure he relies on gravity to form everything large in the universe. To me, we are talking about whole-making forces, which in essence both gravity and magnetism are, along with the strong nuclear force.

[@markmcd2780]

I like to watch Anton Petrov's channel with his basic 'news' from science. Mostly he does a good job of breaking down some complex subjects. What I have a problem with is his lack of vision - over & over across YEARS, he talks about 'unexpected' 'thought impossible' 'never before seen' etc. & seems oblivious to what this might mean. e.g. He comments very often about magnetic currents (& ignores that as far as we know magnetic fields are always associated with electric charges) & vast fields of plasma within & in between galaxies but then is disdainful of any possibility of an EU. e.g. He talks about vast field of plasma & neutral gas, trillions of rogue planets, unexpectedly high numbers of various 'dark stars' that we cannot see, huge numbers of BH's we have yet to discover & yet doesn't question the decades old arithmetic of how much 'normal' matter there might be in the universe. It seems to me there is a lot of that 'wilful blindness' going on where they can literally talk about things which, at the least, call into question their assumptions & then not incorporate them into their views.

[@jamesmacdonald5556]

What did the gas give up it's energy too to be able to collapse?

[@Mentaculus42]

Photons ‽

[@jasonrockefeller3904]

If gravity is fixed, none of these additional explainations are required. Interestingly though electromagnetism plays a role in the begiining of formation but not any further.

[@SernasHeptaDimesionalSpace]

Halton Arp says that at our local neighbor galaxies Hubble fits just fine but at far longger distances Hubble just do not make sence.

[@whig01]

Gas can't just collapse under gravity, it spreads out.

[@nzuckman]

How does the Earth retain its atmosphere then?

[@stevenwhite8937]

@@nzuckmanyou mean the atmosphere that isn’t collapsing onto the surface? Get a bottle of air and release it into space and watch that gas refuse to come together…. Big difference between an atmosphere on a planet and that gas collapsing by itself in space….

[@whig01]

@@nzuckman Solid surface.

[@nzuckman]

@@stevenwhite8937 if you have a small amount of gas that was never gravitationally bound to begin with, then sure, it's obviously going to dissipate. But if you have a very large mass of gas in a small enough volume, I don't see why most of those gas molecules can't remain bound within that volume *and* bounce off each other like billiards. I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm very interested in these kinds of alternative theories! But I need to understand why Earth's gravity is able to keep its own atmosphere, but a ball of gas with the same mass should just fly apart into nothingness. If the Earth's gravity is able to bind it together in the solid and liquid phase, why can't it do that as a gas?

[@eclecticvibrations2044]

I agree with your perspective. Why did it all happen? If our belief of reality is so short lived, then what is the point of existence.

[@SeethePattern]

now you are delving into consciousness which in itself is a fascinating topic with many different perspectives. I would like to think that part of the 'purpose' of existence is to experience, turning the 'outside' world into an internal world ... or maybe the other way round. And above all making connections. It is a topic that deeply fascinates me...

[@bsmith577]

Big bang never happened. Expansion started when gravity of space and matter getting so large, black hole, losing it structure that holds matter together, which is the bending of space within matter and because it has been drawn out by the gravity of space. This creates an expansion with the help of centrifugal force and as soon as this happens galaxies have already started to form as it expands into the flat universe. This leaves a universe resembling a galaxy made up of galaxies.

[@sputnick2012]

One of the most absurd statements of the standard model is that interstellar space is electrically neutral although there are extensive magnetic fields between clusters or in the galaxies themselves... and that scenario is necessary for its theory to have some support since if it were admitted once the presence of plasma is the rule.. Your entire model is falling apart

[@dianetheone4059]

🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟

[@dadsonworldwide3238]

Imo the galaxy model must answer why some galaxies low in metal & heavy elements sat idly by without collapse for whatever billions of years while the majority of its neighbors filled with heavy elements and collapsed so long before.. Imo only some critical extreme state like plasmatic transmutaing pulsating cavation and liquification into mass enough for gravity to then step in for repeatable form & shape while explaining the missing heavy elements. Or the otherway around if need be. Perhaps it's cold nebula static collapse in young galaxies while older ones went through a big event in creating matter but not space time feilds and waves. Perhaps it Is a matter making process still active at a trickle while something upset the energy cart 🤔 3body problem horizon paradoxes on all scales that only chemistry seems to be able to repeatable overcome causes lots of issues for my thought experiments. Even in life it's rarly able to get mobile under guided process. Very few scales have something that can do this in nature

[@spiritsplice]

if Arp were cherry picking, they would have shown that instead of barring him from telescope time. Censorship only happens in science when people discover things they establishment doesn't want you to know.

[@Jollyprez]

It's hard to take Big Bang seriously since it relies on gases collapsing due to gravity - which completely conflicts with the Ideal Gas Law - gases don't collapse - they expand to fill their container evenly. Reliance on Cosmic Microwave Background to "prove" the Big Bang has been thoroughly destroyed by Robitaille and others for over two decades. Regarding interacting Birkeland currents creating / facilitating galaxy formation, along with Arp's idea on how quasars are created - I would think that plasma experimentation could help to see if something similar happens when putting two ( or more ) streams near each other and see how they interact. Further refinements with angles of intersection & differing power to see what kind of formations occur. Regarding quasar formation - one wonders if there may be ways of pulsing or modifying inputs, etc., may create these - bubbles ( plasmoids )? I can see all kinds of fun ways to investigate these. Oh, and I don't understand the necessity of supernovae being the only way to create heavy elements. The supposition that these explosions are the only way to create them completely ignores the [alleged] biggest explosion of them all: the Big Bang!

[@JoeDeglman]

Fusion into heavier elements occurs along electric filaments in the Sun's lower chromosphere, not in the core of the Sun. Check out 'Observing the Sun in Hydrogen Alpha' - By: Brian Ventrudo and Manish Panjwani August 17, 2016

[@theanimationlads7598]

The Ideal Gas Law does not apply for high pressure aka a large force like that due to gravity on large scales. How do you think the atmosphere stays on earth is you don’t think gravity can prevent the gas from flying away due to entropy? Also, the Big Bang was not an explosion, and protons not any elements whatsoever even existed when it occurred, so it wouldn’t make any sense for it to have formed heavy elements.

[@JoeDeglman]

@@theanimationlads7598 The Earth and all of the magnetized planets have a magnetic field and a magnetosphere which condenses and hold the atmosphere in place. Mars and the inert moons which do not have a magnetic field cannot hold an atmosphere. Planets without a magnetic field will lose their atmosphere per the ideal gas law.

[@Jollyprez]

@@theanimationlads7598 Where does the gravity start in the first place? The Standard Model insists that stars start-off as gas that magically accretes itself into a dense ball ( still GAS, somehow ) and self-ignites due to the extreme gravity. It's completely insane and violates not only Ideal Gas Law, but thermodynamics, too. It's illogical, and downright stupid. Seriously. Please note that the Standard Model says this happens ONLY via gravity - no other force is allowed.

[@theanimationlads7598]

@@Jollyprez it violates neither of those things. Large clusters of gas are attracted both with other clusters and towards the center of its own cluster, concentrating it. Gravity does work on the gas, meaning the volume can decrease and the pressure increase. This is internally consistent.

[@davidharrison8975]

It's such a waste that standard theorist resort to making up fantastical things such as dark matter, dark energy and black holes while a simple tool, that already exists, lays ignored right there on the work-bench. The electromagnetic force. Far more powerful than gravity and offers a very simple and elegant answer. But sensation sells magazines and lands cushy jobs...

[@esecallum]

Oh, dark matter, the cosmic clown that's had astronomers chuckling for a century, and there's still no sign of a punchline that makes sense. It's like they've been on an intergalactic wild goose chase for a hundred years, and all they've got to show for it is a bunch of cosmic whoopee cushions that keep deflating when they sit on them. Now, enter axions, the absurdity's absurdity. Astronomers, in their never-ending quest to turn the universe into a comedy show, have introduced these quirky particles into the cosmic script. It's as if they've decided to juggle flaming bowling pins while riding a unicycle on a tightrope that's on fire - you know, just to make the whole thing even more ridiculous. Picture this: Astronomers, with telescopes pointed at the void, staring blankly at the cosmic canvas, suddenly shout, "Dark matter, axions, and...um, other stuff, I guess?" as if they're naming random things from their grocery list and hoping it will magically make sense. It's like trying to play chess with a set of Scrabble tiles - chaotic and utterly incoherent. They've essentially turned the pursuit of knowledge into a century-long cosmic slapstick routine, where the punchline is eternally delayed, and dark matter is the banana peel that keeps astronomers slipping. Axions, in this carnival of chaos, are the cotton candy that's been flung into the crowd, sticking to everyone and making everything even stickier. So, here's to our persistent astronomers, who've transformed the cosmos into a never-ending cosmic stand-up show, with dark matter as the bumbling, pratfall-prone comedian. Keep the popcorn handy, folks; this spectacle of cosmic confusion shows no sign of a sensible ending anytime soon.

[@Critter145]

It’s the “spheres” all over again. The incentives in academia are not conducive to… science.

[@stevenwhite8937]

What…. And have to go back to school and learn a completely different form of physics for a different state of matter and no longer be that “expert” but just a student again????? You are asking too much of them….

[@odomisan]

There are incentives to keep enemy nations chasing fantasy and delaying their progress while they develop weapons from reality.

[@Critter145]

@@odomisan if they’re smart enough, they’re gonna do it anyway, whether the US Govt keeps us two hundred years behind or not.

[@piotrprs572]

Arp, Lerner and Peratt models can be mixed as one model. Plasmoid can eject huge amount of matter also. So we get something what Halton Arp was talking. Also this 'gaining mass' have lot sense. Because this 'matter eject' with high energy will gather huge amount of mass on his way. This 'gaining mass' will slow this ejected matter. Then entropy will do the rest. eg. this 'pack' of matter will expand and start to form another galaxy. We need to remember, that we don't know, what 'physically' makes electric force and electromagnetic force. Also we 'know' that wave can't move/propagate without medium. So there is at least few factors at least, that we know nothing about. Big Bang is the stupidest theory of all... also any other theory that treat gravity as main force is also mega stupid. Because we don't know what gravity is. It's a form o weak electromagnetic force? Or something more? And that c=max speed eg. gravity 'interact' in max speed=c. Is the dumbest declaration of ALL.

[@eyesyc]

Quick! change the books!

[@RobertMStahl]

Classical is ignored? &c, hydrino

[@DANTHETUBEMAN]

Space is stretchy 😅 moving the goal post much? just Lear physics then throw all that away to become a cosmologist 😅

[@DCGreenZone]

Reverse them.

[@hollaadieewaldfeee]

😉 Einstein already made two serious mistakes at the beginning of his SRT generation! a) He disregarded the symmetry of "relativity" (by motion) by omitting one of the two observers (two systems per motion). b) He claimed that the distortions (per motion) of the images correspond to the physical reality of what is depicted;-) Result: unscientific, nonsensic SRT and GRT! NO "spacetime" bendable, NO Black holes and other nonsens;-) First semester level: critizism of theories;-) Aside a scientist: Edwin Hubble. The Problem of the Expanding Universe. 1942.

[@greenthumb8266]

Perhaps the Universe breathes and we are experiencing an in breath, expansion, during this current epoch. Wonder what we will observe during the long out breath, collapse?

[@PasqualeRaso1975]

Pitch black via capacitance Cometary Lighbolt drawn path least resistance no interference myriad stars charge distributed twinkled into depths morphed instantly Green Plasma Accretion Disc inside upright Naga form ideal warping transmuting Globular Filamentary Galactic Cluster retracting hardy under entropy working towards destiny against resistance devouring enemies conditions faced keeping biorhythmic evolutionary path!

[@shockwave326]

z pinch is whats happening

[@nobigbang825]

In western universities very little plasma physicists are being graduated, if any, they almost all go to nuclear weapon research. The first part of the video is science fiction; fuzzy dark matter? Thanks for the video.

[@synx6988]

at 8:08 u claim MOND struggles with galaxy clusters and large scale structure formation. This is false. It's the mainstream model that struggles with this and thus introduces dark matter to solve it. MOND solves this without introducing dark matter

[@Snailmailtrucker]

Why does every illustration that I have ever seen 2:45 show the Big Bang Explosion ONLY exploding and projecting matter in one general direction (Directly East in most instances) instead of Exploding in all directions (360 degrees) in all directions ? *FJB too !*

[@markmcd2780]

Can you think of a way to simulate, in 2D, the initial BB then Inflation etc. if you include it all? :D They do it to show as much info as possible in a single pic. i.e. the slices show the universe in various development, the shape shows the expansion etc. Not saying they are right with their 3 flavours of purely made-up magic needed to explain what we see out there, just that it's not a bad way to reduce the complexity down to usefulness.

[@valentinmalinov8424]

They are doing this to make confusion and to hide the impossibility of BB narrative. Even in NASA "Cup" an intelligent person can see the tricks. - First, our position is in the center of the visible Universe, which should be at the left side of the "Cup" The second is - (in their model) where our position is on the right - Why behind us is no stars? How come? If Universe is spherical, then cut-off projection will be the best diagram, but in such diagram will be visible that CMB is coming from the outer rim, not from the center out! (I am sorry, but light is not making "U" turn in space). If you are interested to see this diagram and to learn more about, please find my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" Regards

[@TheFXofNewton]

Look at this idiot...

[@milogonzalez1334]

why is modified gravity socially acceptable but modified electricity is not?

[@SeethePattern]

the standard paradigm is built on the foundations of gravity being the main driver

[@TheBelrick]

On this subject (if yt allows this post to even be visible) We must recognize that Philosophy and logic trump Science Why science is so fraudulent now is because it is founded upon a logical fallacy. Appeal to Authority. True is true and no amount of credentials changes that fact. Just like lack of credentials makes a person wrong.

[@mikebunetta7420]

It's 101 science class you can't create anything from nothing.

[@hoptoads]

I'm not so sure about that. Politicians create issues out of nothing all the time !

[@sudd3660]

if we only had time to ponder these questions. right now we need to prepare for civilization downfall and non human species extinction. ecological crisis needs full attention and radical action.

[@yupyup6599]

I've always loved science but couldn't get passed how so much violates common sense like I understand it but it just doesn't make sense then I found the electric universe theory and it just makes so much sense I can explain it to grade schoolers and they can understand it more then mainstream theory like it just feels right in my gut I have been part of the EU community since 2008 and talk about it every chance I can get and more people say it's plausible then those that discredit it outright but still even more people just don't care

[@valentinmalinov8424]

If you finding sense in EU, then probably you will enjoy my book - "Theory of Everything in Physics and The Universe" Regards

[@BOOGY110011]

This video clearly imply that pee is store in balls.

[@rikimitchell916]

I think there is sufficient data available to warrant a public debate . Time for the EU to make real waves

[@MrVaticanRag]

Is it true that authorised cosmologists are prevented from using the word "Plasma" because they are incapable of explaining it?..

[@thedarkmoon2341]

Completely backwards. Stars CREATE matter and charge which spiral AWAY from the star as charge does not like to be crowded. The spiral is to be expected in an electricity dominant and not gravity dominant universe.

[@Daiajo]

You have to stop talking about gas in space, it will naturally disperse & is not valid in any model. Also stop saying "ionized gas" as ions are dominated by the electric force & thus do not even remotely behave like a gas; that was the whole point of needing a new term "plasma"

[@Snailmailtrucker]

*"GRAVITY IS SETTLED SCIENCE" !* *"HOW DARE YOU" !* *FJB too!*

[@klnine]

Its a fundmantal question, howeve totally irrelevent ! Eye candy put doen by the controllers and their bought actors ! This is all junk !

[@SeethePattern]

so what is relevant then? Am I a thought controller now or a bought actor ... because they haven't paid me :(

[@nulliusinverba4942]

The very idea time had a begining is childish. All those model are flawed, they need energy that does not exist, the bang, dark energy etc (this is a conceptual monstrosity)... It's always been there, and is likely static, as believed by Newton and Einstein. Cosmological redshift is caused by some sort of refraction (this was even pointed out by Hubble), light not traveling in a straight line is causing tangential speed relative to effective C, stretching light. The math works with the second postulate of special relativity.