The Real Crisis in Cosmology - The Galactic Origin of Light Elements

[@jasontaverner4767]

Just leaving a comment to help with the youtube algorithm

[@BryanChance]

Like and share the video too. That helps. :-+)

[@victoriaTWF]

Thank you for taking your highly valuable time to put this series out! 🥰

[@philjamieson5572]

Thanks for putting this on here. The ideas are exciting and so clearly explained.

[@nicolastorin1490]

Instablaster...

[@trucid2]

I'm so glad people like you found a voice on youtube. There is definitely some big things that cosmologists are missing with their LCDM model and inflation hypothesis. They've tried various tweaks over the years and nothing seems to work right. The whole thing has to be thrown out. I suspect there are problems with how we interpret redshifts that can lead us to very wrong estimates for the age of the universe and of distant objects.

[@fivish]

The Red Shift interpretation is very wrong. It leads to the quantisation of the Red Shift which ends up with the Earth as the centre of expansion! Cosmol;ogy is in crisis thanks to the mathematicians fudging their infinities.

[@bandogbone3265]

Halton Arp wrote a book about this and also published a catalogue of objects that are close together, yet have dramatically different red shifts. This puts into question the idea that the universe is expanding and the way we measure distances to celestial objects.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@fivish it seems it is opposite doesn’t it? The spiral could easily be misinterpreted.

[@williamreymond2669]

15:15] "Neutrinos are very good at social distancing." I'm sick of social distancing, can we please have some good old-fashioned high-energy collisions please?"

[@BUZDRIFT]

Spin me right round baby right round!.........................................and collide me with my mates for a few beers :)

[@davemojarra2666]

Just be a good boy, and wear your mask.🐑

[@BUZDRIFT]

@@davemojarra2666 Boy? I'm no boy Bazza, masks will be worn, but here in Adelaide unlike in the US where you may or may not survive the next year or so we have no active cases, lets put that into number for you Bazza, 0 Active Cases here, how many cases you guys got around ya? It's called decent and responsible politics and social behavior :D From your reply My first reply flew right over your head regarding particles being propelled around and collided CERN LHC ring any bells? A pun on the First joke!!!??? Wow no guile Bazza You silly Lemon you! But I guess its either Trump or Kanye HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑🐑

[@donaldsmith3926]

@@BUZDRIFT "...decent and responsible politics and social behavior..." have been outlawed or gone extinct in the US. I'm glad you folks are doing well, other White folks have lost their minds and decided it's just too darn much work to live around other people. There's a guy named Murdoch who has a network called Fox which broadcasts all manner of irresponsible nonsense refuting science, and I guess because it's on TV, people believe it and think masks don't work and the virus is a hoax. Welcome to an empire in decline. Bad part about it: Russia and China will be outsize influencers w/o us.

[@UncleSam13]

Not happening with neutrinos.

[@fezig83]

You are a genius, a gentleman, and a scholar. You are my favorite scientist.

[@Valisk131]

Really interesting, thanks for posting.

[@onehitpick9758]

I am looking forward to what you have to say about the CMBR measurements. I never got a cosmologist or an astrophysicist to explain how the 200000 galaxies (and possibly many more) in each pixel of the most resolved Planck instrument are cancelled, and I've spoken to many. I know, mathematically, with absolute certainty, that you can't cancel the Milky way, so it should just be blanked.

[@frankhoward4485]

Great job, Eric. I'm looking forward to the rest of the series. Let's solve these mysteries, shall we?

[@theologicaldarkweb2695]

Fiber optic engineers have been compensating for red shift over distance all along. Doesn't the observable fact of red shift over distance make more sense than a Doppler effect cause by the universe expanding away from the earth at an increasing speed relative to distance equally in all directions? As if the earth is the center of the expansion of the universe. When the wavelength of a wave in water caused by a rock splashing changes as the wave travels we observe the same effect but we don't argue the lake is moving away from the observer. Fiber optic engineers and cosmologists need to have a conversation.

[@trupyrodice4462]

Yes, thank you for taking the time to gather the information and present them in such a way that even the laymen can grasp the ideas. Excellent work. Thank you.

[@BryanChance]

Hmmmm....

[@trupyrodice4462]

@@BryanChance You okay brother? Have something to add maybe?

[@HueJacobs]

Anxiously awaiting part three.

[@michaelvincent8514]

Another problem with the standard model is that it doesn’t explain how electrons can continue to orbit the nucleus of an atom13 billion years later with a constant velocity ?

[@gregoryfrechou]

well, Electrons don't really exist as an object in orbit, they are in resonance frequency of probability around the nucleus. it looks like an orbit (sphere) with a single electron, but it becomes very complicated as you add more.

[@michaelvincent8514]

Gregory Frechou Absolutely agree. Was using the standard model against itself.

[@richards5855]

Always had a sort of intrinsic interest in astrophysics, so it’s always inspiring seeing people push to shake things up in the field. Take care and keep up the good work mate.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Astrophysics is way beyond me. The concept over neutrinos are very interesting. It makes me wonder about how they would be perturbed by excitement and if their release is connected. Interesting to the senses.

[@ramblinlamb6459]

Can't help but observe the idea about filaments forming in contracting plasmas ties in with the highly controversial Electric Universe theory, although this theory diverges greatly from classical astrophysics when it comes to the nature and formation of stars. I'm optimistic this issue will be resolved in the future though, considering the constantly improving measurements we are able to make of our sun. Another excellent presentation by Mr. Lerner. Thank you so much.

[@ramblinlamb6459]

Just wanted to add that plasma physics does indeed hold a lot of promise in the development of new theories about the universe.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@ramblinlamb6459 it needs every spare hand it’s offered.

[@chrisbaker2903]

What happens to a neutrino that interacts with the material in the neutrino detectors, sufficiently to produce a measurable effect? Are they destroyed? Do they accrete with the particle they interact with? Nobody seems to have discussed this. If anyone knows where I'd like to know.

[@brendawilliams8062]

Something in the winds blow them out the tubes of a stacked donut?

[@Warfeist]

I’ve noticed that String Super Symmetry as well as any type of M theory also are faulty in their predictions when it involves the homogenuity of the higher structure of the Universe in that if matter is not roughly equal in distribution it contradicts the theory and as we now know the Universe is a lacy complex structure more in tune with plasma architecture. Any comments?

[@maceain]

I love this stuff.... I do not understand it all, but I am getting there. Interesting post, thank you.

[@mubashshiruddin3567]

If the Universe never went through an era of extreme density and temperature then how do we explain the baryon acoustic oscillations.

[@georgelaforce1028]

Thank you. I’ve always known that the Big Bang Theory didn’t sound right because there are too many things that just don’t make sense like inflation. But being that I’m not a scientist there was no way for me to refute it. Great work. I can’t wait to see what’s next!

[@billwesley]

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ec29/67e17bdf65895445310aa28198e0379d4aa4.pdf This theory is without singularities or a big bang, it is steady state; light loses energy to gravity causing it to increase in strength with distance beyond square law negating the need for dark matter while light loses energy to gravity producing the red shift of light with distance without a Doppler shift, without inflation and without the need for dark energy.

[@jansegal6687]

i also get an eerie sensation of the inflation hypothesis.

[@mrmtn37]

What of Velikovski, Alphane, Bjorklund, Thornhill, work? Is there any coincidence?

[@340ironman]

I’m buying into electric universe. So much provable stuff Big Bang=big fraud. Any “expert” gets behind Bang at any point I’m no longer able to believe anything they offer

[@schmeegil2240]

@Dirty Magic11 more like you bought the dark matter cool aid . Plasma cosmology is the answer .

[@schmeegil2240]

@Dirty Magic11 the only electric in the universe is on earth lol . Where there is magnetism there is electricity.

[@emasolie4135]

Brilliantly presented and explained. Evidence supporting the true origins of the Universe and that there was no 'big bang.' Thank you.

[@DerMig590]

How can I get a high quality copy of your documentary "Big Bang Never Happened"? I watched it on KZbin at low resolution.

[@bazpearce9993]

It's refreshing to see someone challenging the BBT who actually knows what they're talking about. :)

[@carpo719]

I have always suspected that those promoting the big bang were a bit pious at times, and the hubris with the way people like... Neil Tyson, for example.... would laugh and ridicule anyone who questioned the 'settled science' of the beginning of time. If we are to take science seriously, it has to take itself seriously. But the observer is often guilty of bias, and that is unavoidable.

[@pheadrus7621]

Really enjoying these. Your voice and pacing are engaging and you've made the explanation simple enough that dumbies like me can follow you. Great presentation. Looking forward to the next episode.

[@Mrch33ky]

Great lecture. I especially enjoyed the humor sprinkled throughout.

[@dinofrangiamore]

I much appreciate these videos Eric, you do a great job explaining things and I think these alternative big bang cosmologies deserve serious consideration. Curious where Doppler/red shift fits in with GOLE. If there was no big bang, what are the alternatives? Are we back to a steady-state universe with evolving galaxies within? Does GOLE allow that that universe may still contract/expand, and, like galaxies and stars, have a lifetime development process itself (through singularities)? Look forward to future installments. Thanks!

[@manipulativer]

Why is there no picture of an electron? And why do they still lie about particle duality and why are they not disclossing aether?

[@BartDooper]

Because an electron isn't a particle also a photon isn't. Intense light can become a proton particle though. The proof is simple, power on a huge electric generator where a large amount of electrons will accelerate to almost the speed of light in 0 time and there is no reaction force... No reaction force for m x a = F. Maybe a reaction voltage but no force. The speed of light is actually the rate of induction. Weirder is that only a few people is starting to realize that. Just as weird that Eric Lerner proofs that there was no big bang and there are only 216 views of this fool proof explanation. cheers

@@BartDooper Sir, your grammar is so atrocious we cannot take anything you say seriously. You must be one of these scientists that this gentleman is making look like a fool! You clearly are barely able to construct a coherent thought.

[@colto2312]

Muh aether wind experiments disproves all of aether.

[@michaeltaylors2456]

Atom photos are highly suspect ... I believe they are fraudulent .

[@shivshankredemption5024]

@@colto2312 Pure vanity

[@electrospank]

7:08 - Excellent touch

[@alpha7B5]

Dear Eric, do you plan (to release) any new books in the area of cosmology perhaps? Or revised and updated edition of your 1991 book 'The Big Bang Never Happened' maybe?

[@humanitech]

I really appreciate your work and eventually the science community will have no option but dismiss the big bang, dark energy matter hypothesis ...but like religions some will always hold fast and try to defend their beliefs...but that is and should remain an accepted and natural part of the human condition.

[@KaliFissure]

@LPPFusion did you get my email with regression of galactic plasma physics and binding/scale relationship ?

[@t00by00zer]

The SAFIRE reactor has produced Lithium in the atmosphere of the reactor.

[@florin604]

@furor tonicus garbage

[@lonniefarmer7067]

@@florin604 Ok, Theorem, postulates, corollaries, with proofs A brief is exceptable. Put your research where your mouth is please.

[@davidmickens3522]

@@lonniefarmer7067 look for yourself SAFIRE project ..Walter and Leo Russell dig for the totally different concept as you read u WILL know it is the TRUTH

[@TheShootist]

@Albert Munkey the only rational response

[@florin604]

Still garbage

[@aquarionh2o132]

Great information. That said I must add the following to your points debunking the Big Bang Theory: IF 13.8 billion years ago the Big Bang supposedly happened the “Methuselah star” (A star located just 200 light years from us), calculated to be 14.5 billion years old could not exist. That said said there are also two other stars located within 1000 light years of us. Both of these stars also have calculated ages in excess of 13.8 billion years. Add to these the LAB6 (Lyman-alpha blob 6) located 18 billion light years away from us. The background radiation of the Big Bang can also be debunked. All told, there is far more proofs disproving the theory than supporting it.

[@LPPFusion]

Yeah, the BB theory is all hole and no cheese. My new paper, which I hope will be published this year, will pull this all together for a journal.

[@aquarionh2o132]

LPPFusion Great to hear. I did some rough calculations just a week or two ago for my 14 yr old son to show him that the movement of the universe indicates that it is over 1 trillion years old. Any thoughts on the toroid shape of the universe? If this theory holds true there would be a cyclical nature to the universe, and its flow.

[@MountainFisher]

@@aquarionh2o132 Lerner believes the Universe is eternal, not a trillion yo. He only has BA in physics, he went on to graduate school, I presume to get his masters, but left after a year not liking their Mathematical emphasis when he wanted to experiment, but they don't let you do major experiments if you can't do the math.

[@markthompson14]

Beware of media hype designed to get attention. The scientists applied current theory to learn more about the Methuselah star's burn rate, composition and internal structure, which also shed light on its likely age. For example, HD 140283 has a relatively high oxygen-to-iron ratio, which brings the star's age down from some of the earlier predictions, researchers said. The star *could* be as old as 14.5 billion years (plus or minus 0.8 billion years). That range places it within the age of the Big Bang and does not pose a problem. But the headlines got a lot of attention. As for LAB6, I think that was due to a typo in Heritage Daily that refers it being over 18MLY away per a Nature Astronomy study report, However, other sources refer to the same article and say that it is over 10MLY away.

[@markthompson14]

@Ernst Stavro Blofeld Good questions. Actually, I don't think the size is a problem. HD 140283 actually was subdwarf, is now a subgiant turning into a giant with a dead helium core. Subdwarfs were once thought to be dwarfs that are sub-luminous for their classes. Because of their low metals, which are expected for primitive stars, they are actually hotter and smaller for their luminosities, the low metal abundances giving them classes that are anomalously warm. (All are of class F or cooler. Don't confuse them with similarly named class O and B subdwarfs, which are highly evolved and are on their way to becoming white dwarfs.) Because they are ancient, subdwarfs such as these all have low masses, below about 80 or 90 percent that of the Sun; those of higher initial mass have long since burned away. As for the extra tests, HD 140283 certainly is an anomaly and the first scientists who ran the tests made some false assumptions as to what they were looking at. Scientists do make mistakes, you know. The 191 MLY away is a bit more of a problem, but not unexplainable. Stars are far from stationary and their traveling speed through the Universe varies widely. While close to us now, HD 140283 is a visitor from the ancient Galactic halo and is just passing through the orderly disk at a speed of 361 kilometers per second relative to the Sun. This Methuselah star has seen many changes over its long life. It was likely born in a primeval dwarf galaxy. The dwarf galaxy eventually was gravitationally shredded and sucked in by the emerging Milky Way over 12 billion years ago. The star retains its elongated orbit from that cannibalism event. Therefore, it's just passing through the solar neighborhood at a rocket-like speed of 800,000 miles per hour. It takes just 1,500 years to traverse a piece of sky with the angular width of the full Moon. The star's proper motion angular rate is so fast (0.13 milliarcseconds an hour) that Hubble could actually photograph its movement in literally a few hours. HD 140283 is certainly an anomaly that has challenged our understanding of the Universe. I don't see that as a bad thing but a good thing that leads to beneficial refinements to the standard model of the Universe. What would science be without challenges? Pretty boring, huh? And any theory that remains static is almost certainly becoming obsolete. What irritates me, frankly, is that every time something is found that challenges the completeness of our understanding of the Universe, some sophomoric scientist starts screaming that the Big Band is now the Big Bust. That is absurd unprofessional nonsense. When I play along and ask them what they would substitute in its place they stumble, bumble, and fumble all over themselves with metaphysical rambling and eventually have to admit they are clueless. But, yes our understanding of the Big Bang is partial and incomplete and no doubt always will be.

[@cav4290]

Hello, could you explain (or ideally make a video) your conclusion why the homogeneity of cosmic microwave background radiation is evidence that challenges the BB theory?

[@leighmoom5277]

because it doesnt show a hot spot so they create the new theory of inflation to explain why it doesnt match

[@otinane89]

@@leighmoom5277 So they create a theory (inflation) to cover up a weakness of an other theory (BB), and now they search for evidence why inflation happened, and create a third theory (inflaton field or whatever)? This is a huge mess...

[@LPPFusion]

It is coming in a future episode!

[@otinane89]

@Dirty Magic11 Well there are ways, but the thing is that there is evidence that expansion might also not be a thing. Look, I am not into plasma physics, electric universe etc. I just like the fact that this guy openly exposes all that is wrong about modern cosmology, stuff that most physicists seem to not give a damn about explaining, or trying to fix them. Detecting the mistake is the first step to the right direction...

[@robertlynch7520]

The real big problem then remains … very probably to be explained in future lectures (which are fascinating), of dealing with Sir Hubble's seminal and profound finding: that with very careful quantitative metrology of stars at ever larger (and harder to precisely gauge) distances, the photometric evaluation of their apparent brightness, AND the degree of red-shift of their key elemental absorption and emission lines, plotted, falls on an extraordinarily tight linear line. Implying, absent any competent theory as yet withstanding, implying that the visible Universe is expanding at a nearly constant-rate over distance. H₀ = something between 65 and 75 km/s per megaparsec. Apparently doesn't matter which direction one points one's instruments, at virtually all distances, thus the result is known. Still - as the good professor will likely next bring forth - even H₀'s particular value is far from being incontrovertible. It was thought that ever finer measurements would coalesce on a value with higher and hither precision. Anything but. The value has diverged into at least 2 and perhaps 3 converging-but-different value camps. OK, OK, so the galaxies and stars are not really MOVING apart from each other, but that space-time itself is expanding, and like with ships in a harbor, they are raised and lowered together by the same tide. The galaxies and stars are NOT moving apart from each other in the velocity coördinates of this Universe, but the Universe's fabric of spacetime continues ot expand, apparantly fairly isotropically. It is the isotropic expansion which is a hard problem for a non-Big-Bang unierse. That it is expanding, or bouncing, or whatever, is also a problem. Any kind of bouncing, and we must provoke the a-priori question: if this si bounce number (you name it), then what came before that? One could follow that down one heck of a Rabbit Hole, and end up somewhere between metaphysics and theology. Still, it will be very interesting to see what develops from the no-big-bang proposal. • Where does matter then come from • Why is spacetime apparently expanding? • How come there is so much homogeneity in the Universie • Why are the fundamental constants homogeneous across the universe? • What started the nucleosynthesis process? • What power source fed, feeds, feeds upon it? • Why isn't the Universe chock-full of neutrinos and other crazy almost-but-not-quite particles? • What mathematical tension holds all known forces to propagate no faster than 'c'? A few others I've been pondering, Letting all matter decay to energy, does this imply that the mass of the universe is a constant still? Converted to photons, neutrinos … is the MASS of all that energy the same as the matter it came rom? Does this imply that a sufficiently condensed 'ball of photons' has a gravitational attraction? Inquiring minds need to know. Bob Lynch UCBerkeley, 1981, Chemistry

[@anderd333]

Robert you say, "Sir Hubble's seminal and profound finding: that with very careful quantitative metrology of stars at ever larger (and harder to precisely gauge) distances, the photometric evaluation of their apparent brightness, AND the degree of red-shift of their key elemental absorption and emission lines, plotted, falls on an extraordinarily tight linear line. " Here is my simplistic question on that... kzbin.info/www/bejne/fJqXoKJ7rbeaf9U&lc=UgyZZ4VGT7-jnXEtkgp4AaABAg

[@RWin-fp5jn]

Nice video eric! I would agree there is no period where at an infitessimal small point in spacetime contained extremly high energy in the sense of potential. However that does not exclude the description of a big-bang in spacetime terms. What we need to do is to merge both theories and accept that just like in the subatomic world, the period prior to the big bang was governed by energy forming the grid and mass forming the clock (as penrose suggest). So we have duality between functions and measures at work here. At the big bang we simply had a massive unoverse in terms of energy as the grid and it has been contracting eversince our universe started to grow in spatial terms. The inproduct of both grid definitions always remanining the ‘devine equilibrium’ value of 1.

[@SusanAmberBruce]

Looking forward to the next episode

[@ShawnVanden]

“Give me a single miracle, I’ll explain the universe” is an oft used quote, which neglects to provide any scientifically plausible consensus of the Big Bang’s Massively Dense Energy origins, just before Expansion. Thanks for articulating your data/fact based hypothesis disputing the “Scientific Myth” the universe’s cosmological origin as accepted by a majority of your peers, who accepted unverified BB theories w/out due diligence exclamation.

[@MsKatjie]

All originates from nothing, sounds more like the mystic and sublime, rather than a quoted fact of science. The bang, is given credence seemingly without dissent, amoungst the mainstream; which to my egg shell mind, is ridiculous. The self and illusion of will and so much more should be considered. But in a world, that ignorance is strength and freedom is slavery; one must wonder about it all!

[@gdibble]

Mr. Lerner, I look forward to your next episode in this series, and greatly enjoyed this and the previous 👍

[@lenlooksback7981]

Terrific stuff! This Big Bang drivel must end. Horray for Hoyle's, ever robust, steady-state model!!!

[@kennethferland5579]

Lerner is not proposing the Hoyle steady-state model, he's been adamant the universe is non-expanding which would invalidate the Hoyle model too.

[@handleismyhandle]

Alright, another suggestion for this year. Why not use a carbon electrode for the dpf, but cool it to cryogenic temperatures? Maybe even get it superconducting this way?

[@effingsix3825]

So, do neutrinos travel in currents?

[@Problembeing]

EffingSix I would argue they do.

[@florin604]

Neutrinos have no electrical charge they are immune to "currents"

[@danielpaskoful]

Neutrinos are neutral, no charge. Not affected by current.

[@jonstreeter1540]

This is thrilling.

[@guytech7310]

One Thought about He & Li Observations: Presuming there was a BB, than its likely that in the first 300K to 1M years, Hydrogen with have fused into He before there were any stars. The velocity and density of hydrogen Ions would have been sufficient to trigger fusion. That said, The BB has a lot of holes & Paradoxes. It need major fudge factors such as the BB was a extremely faster than light event, other wise the mass of the universe would have caused it to collapse into a black hole, before any stars could be formed. (inflation theory).

[@herbertberger7711]

Aren't Backgroundradiation and Redshift an oldfashioned geocentrical thing?

[@ModelSceneryTutorials]

Two sessions on problems. So where is any hint of a solution. If not the big bang, what else? And how can that be proven by observation?

[@sere2594]

Greetings Sir, May I express my gratitude for your no BS, facts matter analysis. As an intelligent, common sense person with pray scant institutional learning, my appreciation is high. I would be most interested in your take on the research from the Thunderbolts Project and Safire in relation to the info herein. Joy and Blessings.

[@sere2594]

@Son of Stars Apparently, you should not try to be a translator. You are incorrect. I must say your remarks only served to make you appear rather snobish, certainly not intellectual..gee, I don't believe the Wright Brothers were thought so highly educated and definately not considered intelligent, crazy yes. Since when is it unintelligent to ask a question of an intelligent person. You state an assumptive question about my religion..why, because I have appreciation of and wish someone good things. Tsk, tsk..what a sad and narrow mind and heart you carry. I wish you peace.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@Son of Stars All major scientific paradigm shifts have started out as fringe theories with the vast majority of the "experts" maintaining the status quo. Science is about searching for truth; not maintaining the status quo.

[@sere2594]

@Son of Stars "I have seen your type while dealing with sovereign citizens and flat earthers."...😂😂😂😂WOW! Sovereign citizen, skippy damn right with the intelligence and self confidence to employ critical thought. Which requires a dialogue...not being dealt with. Highly educated idiots seem to be as prevalent as dare I say, uneducated idiots. Shoo...

[@rg3412]

It would be interesting to hear a conversation between the researchers behind the Janus Model and Eric. They don’t specifically try to solve the light elements problem but nevertheless they also ended up concluding that the Big Bang didn’t happen. Their main positioning is as an alternative to the Lambda-CDM model.

[@MrKafein]

The Janus Cosmological Model of Jean-Pierre Petit also provides a very interesting geometrical framework that explains precisely why we cannot observe the so-called Dark Matter/Energy, definitely worh to look at !

[@iroulis]

Without a Big Bang: What caused the cold isotropic CMB?

[@greenftechn]

Right. Big Bang, or perhaps B.B. like conditions have left a number of markers, leading to the theories.

[@guytech7310]

My guess is that the CMB isn't from the Big Bang. Just red-shifted light from very distance galaxies. Also we have detected abundant radio emissions all the way down to about 30 Mhz, which may indicate light that is red-shifted much lower frequencies (Search for the "Space Roar")

[@iroulis]

@@guytech7310 So you're saying distant galaxies fill the ENTIRE sky? The CMB is detected by it's black body spectrum (a curve) over 5 magnitudes in wavelength to match the red-shifted temperature of 2.725K asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/archive/arcade/cmb_spectrum.html

[@iroulis]

@SGT NOS Saw it. It is very confusing. I've never heard that interstellar CN was used to determine CMB: Maybe after the fact.

[@Arghore]

Another, perhaps better question is, why is finding evidence for a prediction proof of the prediction ? ... Also known as the Black Swan problem ... or to put it in more understandable words, why can CMB ONLY be caused by the Big Bang? ... i know that is sort of what you asked, because the answer to both our questions will likely be the same. though yours makes an assumption, where mine asks for proof of said assumption...

[@eev24eshmolikali]

This does agree with AMCC-MCEO-GA /speaker E'Asha Ashayana Arhayas, who say the Universe is at least 970,000,000,020 years old. But the difference is that there are 5 HU-s in the Veca Time Matrix, and we also have the Ecka, Eckasha, Eckasha A, and Eckasha Aah Time Matrices. So it is difficult to link the present Physics Theory with the theory of Harmonic Universes and Time matrices.

[@trucid2]

If universe isn't expanding then what is the mechanism for generating hydrogen clouds which form galaxies and first generation stars? What is the mechanism for getting rid of neutrinos and antineutrinos?

[@jjdladams82]

Not sure if that was deadpan humor, but I like it, “We developed this model such a long time ago we were still using Roman numerals.”

[@BillPalmer]

Don’t you mean particles per CUBIC cm (not square cm)?

[@tttm99]

Are the lesser than expected spectral observations in He (for BB) in any way similarly comparable to the gamma ray reabsorption your model adjustments make for GOLE? My question is could He energetic differences and related interference implied by your reabsorption theory also account for light spectral emissive discrepancies (deficiencies) for BB also?

[@KaliFissure]

Thoughts that the 3 flavors of neutrino exist because there are 3 quark, 3 axes of spin in nucleons. Each energy level represents a broken bond to one of those axes. The only stable quark forms have 3 axes. The mass of neutrino comes from its 3 spin axes working on the vacuum energy

[@SuperCape]

So - instead of a BB - you are proposing a gradual shift from homogeneous plasma up to homogeneous hydrogen and into stars, galaxies etc.? What would timescales be?

[@leighmoom5277]

God created the heavens and the earth. What came first the chicken or the egg? How long has the earth been here according to science? 4.3 billion. How many letters in a human dna? For a single cell amoeba if the dna changed every second how long would it take to get to a reptile? Wait we have now neo-darwinian theory massive mutations to explain this. when have you seen a 2 headed chicken live or a 3 legged one live? would be handy to have a 4 legged chicken so everyone in a family of 4 can have a leg

[@galbrunfranck9960]

@@leighmoom5277 Giving a false example doesn't prove anything. There are no frogs, reptiles, birds or mammals with more than four legs (or two legs and two wings), it's a general plan for all these creatures. The fact that there's no human beings with 3 legs would be a proof of what? I can see a lot of pseudo-sciences that are not correct, for instance they use the result they want to predict in the demonstration of the same result, you can see it everywhere. In evolution we have just very few points on a line and the sum of all these observations are quite convincing. Can you use any scientific method to prove the existence of God at the same scientific level? It's a question of conviction, not a question of proofs of what so ever.

[@leighmoom5277]

@@galbrunfranck9960 2.85 billion nucleotides in human dna. One amoeba has 670 billion and even a standard has 290 billion 10 times the human dna. For lightening to strike a soup and create the dna in exact right order if it struck every second it is mathematically impossible for the age of the earth. So we came from an asteroid?

[@LPPFusion]

Right--trillions of years. See the latest podcast in the Cosmic Connection series and a future episode of this series.

[@robheusd]

@@LPPFusion What is that estimate based on? The largest black hole (named TON xx or something) has so much mass (billions of solar masses) that the conventional theory how black holes have formed (star->super nova->gravitational collapse into black hole->eat and eat surrounding matter and repeat that for billions of years) could not possible fit in the timeframe the BBT allows for, so they also there need an adhoc hypothesis for how such large black holes could even exist, dubbed as "primordial black holes" that supposedly formed not long after the big bang itself. How that even would work is not well worked out but supposedly the initial gas cloud that seeded the formation of that primordial black hole skipped the star formation phase almost immediately and directly collapsed into a black hole. If that is even allowed within the band with of mass density distribution as per big bang scenario, I don't know.

[@szolanek]

Good work! It is so smooth and balanced, it has to basically true. I never favorized BB theory. * I watched booth videos, there is no suggestion about the Beginning. There has to be, since the measures starts near from zero.

[@DavidButler-m4j]

Well done.

[@amiraslkhalili5638]

Not as comprehensive as it must be , but yet , way more informative than James Peebles

[@rodanderson8490]

I've been trying to imagine in what possible way any of this knowledge could matter to humankind in general. The ONLY thing I could come up with is that somehow/someday a working theory of Faster Than Light (FTL) travel will be derived from this growing understanding of how the universe happens to be. IF humankind is to have ANY significance in the universe -- this could be the path that leads to that future reality.

[@LPPFusion]

Hi Rod, great question. In essence making sure that our theories are tested and its predictions reliable will make all the difference to humanity. For longer answers check our series named Cosmic Connection. In short however, understanding the origin of universe, like how quasars form, could make an immediate impact. For example replicating a star formation in a lab would mean that we could completely replace toxic fossil fuels energy production with the clean, safe and cheap fusion energy. For decades however science and fusion have been massively underfunded so we keep hearing the old "fusion is always 40 years" away but really had there been a leadership more interested in clean energy we could've had a completely different economy now based on clean fusion energy. Instead after 2 bailouts, and numerous wars we are only looking into more austerity and more pollution. So part of a reason we are creating these series is for people to understand what is possible and that these solutions are not a pie in the sky but rather a reality that can improve the standard of living for all faster than people think possible.

[@robheusd]

@@LPPFusion I'm pessimistic about the current US leader ship, they blew up nordstream gas pipeline and covered it up, no media talk about the US has blown up the pipelines, only talk about chinese balloons, the US empire just forces europe to import more LNG from the US, australia and Qarar, which emits much more CO2 as pipeline gas, forces payments of that gas in US dollars and not other currency, and intentionally provoked a war with russia in ukrain to provide the pretext for achieving these goals. Their talk about the risk of humanity due to global warming is empty rethoric, instead the war industry and fossil fuel industry get prepped up and making billions of dollars out of this, and invoke at the same time the risk of a nuclear war with russia if the situation there escalates. We are closer to real nuclear war then ever before - and at the same time also provoking china, banning trade of micro chips, provoking china over the taiwan issue, etc. etc. Rising energy prices also causes rising food prices and potential hunger pandemics due to high food prices. The US system is not saving humanity, they are only saving their warmongering and war profeteering business, and let other people pay for that.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Good basic Physics practical sciencing methodology.

[@fast_harmonic_psychedelic]

gamma rays dont travel as far because their frequency is such that makes the likelihood of colliding with another particle greater, they collide with something long before they reach us

[@DavidSanchez-vx4bv]

If the BB theory is discarded then the implications would be HUGE!! I mean, the Universe is NOT 14 Billion Years old, simple because it wasn't created in the BB... the movements or the Galaxies and the Red shift SHOULD have other explanation.... and also would be even philosophycal questions: what is the origen of everything? Does it has sense to ask this question??

[@DavidSanchez-vx4bv]

@Son of Stars no... I don't that type of biblical guy.. I don't even beleive there is a God... For me is just these are very interesting times because theories that were well accepted now are challenged... Just as happens with Einstein and Newton last Century

[@kohoko1952]

Settings engaged...playback speed increased exponentially!

[@clivewells7090]

Double!

[@dragoscc1163]

Have anyone watched Erich von Daniken? This is the cosmology version of him. I don't say there are no gaps in the current standard model but his arguments don't add up from logical point of view. Build a whole new universe based on some estimation errors made quite a while ago. Will try to watch the rest of the series but, if it's based on the same hypothesis...

[@robertkemper8835]

Very, interesting and extremely enlightening! Thank you, and I am awaiting the next chapter. I had previously heard about some of the light element discrepancies. What about the asymmetry of kaon decay as the explanation for why there is matter? Is there already a body of support in the community? Who is challenging your analysis?

[@Beegeezy144]

15:15 Neutrinos are good at social distancing. 😂

[@TropicalCoder]

What I want to know is how is it that neutrinos travel clear across the universe, going right thru stars like they are not even there, but collide in the end in a neutrino detector in Antartica? Sounds kind of improbable to me.

[@sgartner]

@@TropicalCoder In the last 15 minutes 10^19 neutrinos passed through your body, so even though the chances of a collision are very small, with so many neutrinos there will still be some. Statistically only one of those 10 quintillion neutrinos likely collided and was absorbed by an atom of your body. So, the trick is to have a large enough target (such as the 12.5 million gallons of water in the Super Kamiokande detector in Japan) to raise the probability of interactions high enough such that the detection equipment (an array of 11,000 light sensors) is sensitive enough to catch some of those few improbable collisions.

[@ramblinlamb6459]

What a terrible term. Should be called personal distancing, or maybe physical distancing. Whoever came up with it must be anti-social.

[@ikaeksen]

Instead of BB or SS i suggest that the universe grew up as it is from nothing into this universe (but ofc it now inflates. Meaning in the start all atoms grew up, came from nothing where they where from start like a perfect image,,and when that was done, it began to move, to interact and to accelrate outwards. In other words, time started to move. (grew like a flower)(then started to move. Become alive)

[@numatechprototypes222]

This is the experiment that I'm wanting to try and that I'm prepping for right now. By using fusion to fuse tin and copper into gold isotope 104 I need to stabilize the isotope with 14 neutrons because fusing copper and gold gives you 79 electrons 79 protons only a 104 neutrons which means stabilizing it with 14 neutrons should give us a nice stable 118 isotope if I'm successful with this experiment this could be extremely important for the technological production industry as expensive gold is used in many of their processes for making solid state chips ultimately lowering the cost for future technology in theory this should work with tungsten and Boron and stabilizing it with an extra 13 neutron's I'm designing a fast Burst Neutron gun for this project most of the recent attempts to make gold synthetic Lee has been using either bismuth lead or Mercury and knocking electrons off or fission with mild success creating mainly heavier isotopes of gold that decay into Mercury by making a lighter isotope of golden bombarding it with neutrons to bring it up to its stable isotope should be the wise way of doing it

[@dankuchar6821]

The energy required will be far more expensive than any microscopic trace amounts of gold you might produce.

[@PSRPulsar]

Gamma rays with E > 10^2 GeV (or their progenitors - cosmic rays like protons) - cannot be "trapped" by star's magnetic field - it is just too weak. Why not just take simple explanation like Gamma interact with matter with much higher probability than neutrinos? Good attempt, by the way. Cosmology needs criticism.

[@LPPFusion]

No, big difference between protons with a charge, which can be trapped by magnetic fields, and gamma rays, which are neutral and can't be. But down-going gammas will be absorbed by the star's huge bulk. Orbit of 100GeV proton in 1 G field, typical of Sun, is only 3,000 km.

[@PSRPulsar]

​@@LPPFusion > Orbit of 100GeV proton in 1 G field, typical of Sun, is only 3,000 km. So there should be "radiation belt" of such protons (1000 GeV!!) around Sun? For Earth the value of Magnetic Field is around ~0.3G (source www.scholarpedia.org/article/Galactic_magnetic_fields#:~:text=Cosmic-ray%20electrons%20in%20galaxies,large%20range%20of%20radio%20wavelengths.) For example, what sorta energies in radiation belts could be (Saturn): "We observed an inner radiation belt extending between 1.03 and 1.22 Saturn radii (1 RS = 60,268 km) at the equatorial plane, dominated by protons with energies from 25 MeV up to the giga-electron volt range. " (from science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6410/eaat1962?rss%253D1=).

[@andthensome512]

Sooner or later, the electric/plasma universe model will prevail. Thunderbolts project.

[@ashleylaw]

Yes. No Big Bang. No Dark Matter nor dim, no photons, no 'T'. No 'Gravity '. This man is confused and befuddled because his model is just false.

[@schmeegil2240]

@@ashleylaw no gravity lol . You don't have a clue . Stop listening to drivel .

[@tysonsmith9711]

WeAreThey No...Pilot wave theory.

[@SW-wf3gy]

Yup

[@ashleylaw]

@@SW-wf3gy Once you understand that we been lied to about everything....There is no duality ..for Nature is elegant, economical never wasteful.

[@katmanclancy]

Thank you for that, allways new there was too many buts f a BB theory, please can we have more of this..

[@muntee33]

Good stuff

[@KaliFissure]

Best of luck with those insulation issues. High voltages begin to require large sizes just to distribute/separate charges. All insulators break down or the charge pressure finds a path. Re cosmology…….neutron decay cosmology. Which along w it’s topology explains electron half spin, baryon asymmetry, solves fine tuning and black hole paradoxes all using a well known physical process and a trick of topology. When a neutron finally contacts event horizon or is part of neutron star inversion to event horizon those neutrons become the vacuum flux for a single Planck second then re-emerge, distributed individually across universe at all points of lowest energy density. One neutron in one neutron out. In deep voids these neutrons decay into amorphous atomic hydrogen. This decay process includes a volume increase, energy density decrease, of 10^56 times. Expansion to compensate for G. This amorphous atomic hydrogen doesn’t have stable orbital electron so can’t emit or absorb photons. Dark matter or some of it. In time this hydrogen stabilizes and follows usual evolution path from gas to nebula to proto star to star until in distant future it is again at edge of event horizon. A world path. This is the manifold. Surface (cos(u/2)cos(v/2),cos(u/2)sin(v/2),sin(u)/2) 0

[@topfuel29channel]

Are Black Holes really Black Holes, and not some other astronomical phenomenon similar to Black Holes?

[@catem3102]

See Fractal Woman on KZbin.

[@topfuel29channel]

@@catem3102 - some interesting videos. anything on an alternate hypothesis?

[@gcallananpainting]

@@topfuel29channel counterspace. It's all magnets and electricity. Ken wheeler.

[@_John_Sean_Walker]

Black Holes aren't Black Holes at all, they are Black Balls.

[@georgelaforce1028]

That would be Black Sphere not Black Balls. That’s just doesn’t sound right! 😂

[@fast_harmonic_psychedelic]

a gamma ray is essentially just one step less frequency than an electron, electrons are just the next wavelength of light after gamma ray

[@plasmaastronaut]

back in 2016 i tried to tell Eric that the safire team had made a fundamental step beyond his focus fusion research. Focus fusion requires a big capacitor bank to generator electric discharges. But stars don't have big electronic capictor banks, so how do they do it? Eric will wax lyrical about how plasma shapes itself to best suite its environment. He's correct, but if only he'd actually listened to his own words, because safire found that when subjected to steady voltage, plasma will mould itself into a unstable fractal plasma capacitor as it tries to drain/stash every electron it can from/in itself to satisfy the potential difference. The double layers demonstrated in safire are effectively 1 atom thick 2d films with special properties, like graphine. The doubles layers in safire are more efficient and powerful than FF1's capacitor bank, and the whole setup is more natural and simple; It is how stars do fusion, and more : creation of new matter from quantum critical fields - the double layers and the plasmoids they create have voltages over that of the quantum critical limit, so they split virtual particle pairs apart and create new matter into the universe. Hydrogen is created out of nothing in stars, in the interior of planets, but most of all in the centre of galaxies and star clusters. Thanks to Eric for pioneering fusion work from the 1970s to about 2010. But after 2010 new ideas were superceding his. He's not accepted this yet, but it will be interesting to see if he remains stubbornly ignorant of safire's progress and discoveries as they become more apparent and applicable over the next decade. Coronal fusion > Focus fusion.

[@fjames208]

Interesante

[@nightwaves3203]

Still partially looking at the universe materials as if they have a determinable start of particles instead of functioning with the ever present universes collection of interacting and streaming energies.

[@scifrygaming]

Great video!! I have found it amazing that after 2+ decades of trying to prove big bang cosmology, all the data has shown the exact opposite. There was no big bang, or dark mater and definitely not dark energy. Dark energy is a complete sampling bias gone widely wrong and dark matter is the result of failing to take the electro-magnetic effect into account over large distances!! That's just an engineer's opinion.

[@philoso377]

Seriously which came first, suns or galaxy.

[@DeliciousDeBlair]

So...1, how old are you saying the universe is, and 2, what are you saying is its origin?

[@bandogbone3265]

Your questions presuppose that the universe has an age and an origin. Maybe it doesn't.

[@simonruszczak5563]

He doesn't know, but he knows modern science is wrong.

[@LordOfNihil]

we know that newer stars gained heavier elements over time. so you can roll back the clock until there is only hydrogen. this means there was a point in time where stars did not exist but hydrogen did. you still have to explain where that initial hydrogen came from, or if the hydrogen was always there why didnt it turn into stars until it did? but that doesnt say anything about the origin of the universe itself.

[@LPPFusion]

Everything IN the universe has an origin, but the universe--everything that exists--does not need one. We'll say more about this in future episodes and in our companion series, Cosmic Connection.

[@robheusd]

@@LPPFusion In the ultimate sense, I agree that we can not say that the universe as a whole has an absolute origin (since in or with what it could have started, since all that exists already is grasped under the idea of the universe-everything, it could have only started in or from nothng, but nothing is only nothing and not the begin of anything, nothing is only equal to itself and not its opposite) but in principle we are allowed to at least imagine or speculate that there is more structure to the universe then we can observe from our point of view in the universe on distance and time scales much larger then the observable universe, so maybe we could be inhabiting some very large (many times larger then the observable universe is estimated to be) sub-structure of the universe that itself could have been evolved from a previous and different sub-structure with different forms of matter, and while such a sub-structure could have had a definite start and end, the universe as a whole does not, but it makes no sense to pose any speculation on that since there is no observable evidence for that to even posit such a speculative idea, and most likely never will be, and there is no compelling urge or need to explore such speculative ideas, it simply serves no purpose since any speculation is as good as any other speculative idea since there is no way to scientifically investigate and test such ideas.

[@haleymoore6684]

Love rhis video!!!

[@richardsleep2045]

Wow I've found a really cool rougue cosmologist. I'm surprised they havn't burnt Eric at the Stake lol.

[@WayneTheSeine]

Burnt him like a steak or to a stake? :P

[@tatonemio6388]

FYI this dude is not a scientist and very much less a cosmologist, he never got a PhD as far as I know he never did research in any institution/university ...he is a writer and as such he must be go "rogue" in order to sell...sadly

[@LPPFusion]

There was a very prominent fire-extinguisher in one lecture hall, so I said I was glad it was there in case anyone got any ideas!

[@LPPFusion]

@@tatonemio6388 check out our peer-reviewed publications here: lppfusion.com/peer-reviewed-papers/ and older papers here: www.bigbangneverhappened.org/downloads.html

[@richardsleep2045]

@@WayneTheSeine Ah pretend I can spell lol

[@rogerscottcathey]

Brilliant. Real science.

[@kurokuro3093]

Cheers Eric, could you perhaps cover how this incorporates red shift?

[@handleismyhandle]

We are collapsing into a black hole, but we will never reach the 'center'. The universe is a perpetually unfolding fractal matrix where new space is being created by an infinite contraction of scale.

[@SamMackrill]

For red shift explanation see Halton Arp "Seeing Red"

[@fivish]

The red shift is the cause of all the wrong theories such as the BBT. Space is not expanding!

[@leighmoom5277]

4 things to always think about. Does light bend? Does the speed of light change through media? Does light get filtered through media? Is space really empty? How many radiation belts ice belts meteor belts planets comets etc between me and the object I observe? has the light bent slowed filtered or been reflected ?

[@thuggie1]

this is getting interesting

[@BryanChance]

I don't know enough to understand this video. LOL Whatever happened with the electric universe idea? I've seen it on some other channels.

[@abbamtenga2438]

The paradigm of perception, the skewed frame of reference. Suppose I am a proton, am I clueless of the existence of an electron and a neutron and am I aware of the encompassing structure which is the atom and the entanglement withing the nucleus?? What is my frame of reference in that either??? Suppose I am an electron, I can jolt in and out of the nucleus am in constant motion due to my charge characteristics, yet am I confined by the nature of my properties or am I a derivative of the existing energy that surrounds me and can it subjugate me??? Why dont we realize that there is a third factor, a tertiary focal point that is a directive. Is energy ever stagnant though it cannot be created or destroyed??? Lets challenge the realm of our reality, which really does not exist, the void structure that is 99% our mass less atoms. Have we really looked deeper in our geometrical norms, Euclidean, Elliptic and Parabolic?? Check in the axioms and postulates for each geometrical model and place it in transparency with the mathematical models and physics be it relativistic, quantum etc etc and realize the endless possibilities?? Its just a hunch and I stand to be corrected. Second if we conceive our universe a substantial mass, then what is its buoyancy and as such it must be wrapped into something, somewhere somehow and is the wrap layered??? Share your ideas.... Ohh If our brains can create neuron connections then can the universe. I dont agree with either the big band and the cyclical model. They are eloquent...

[@1MinuteFlipDoc]

you should number your episodes - put the number in the video title - so it's easier to follow the series. I see you are posting other videos as well, which might cause some confusion as to which episode (in this series) is next.

[@LPPFusion]

The number is in the comments.

[@TommysHandle]

Good work. As valid, to me, as the those models with “popular” awareness. One thing, plasma needs a new word. Ex. I’m a philosophical anarchist, but discuss “micro-democracy”.

[@danthefrst]

Hey, Eric. You should go on the Joe Rogan pod cast. As a layman I have, probably too many stupid question about this and Joe Rogan is pretty darned good at asking all the questions, ranging from all too stupid, to not nearly as stupid questions. Although the are in the same stupid range.

[@LPPFusion]

Dear danthefirst, unless you can arrange a session with Rogan, we'd be happy to arrange 30-45 min video recorded session dedicated just to your questions. We like Jitsi but can do Zoom, Skype or whatever. Email [e-mail]

[@bobinmaine1]

I've watched the first two and still find myself wondering what you believe the beginning was? Or of indeed there was a beginning. You speak often of the hot, dense, plasma stage of the universe so it seems that you agree the universe was much much smaller at some point. But then you talk of galaxies forming directly from the plasma as if no cooling or expanding were necessary. Really feel like you should have maybe started with your theory before going through all of the problems in cosmology that all physicists are aware of, talking about and working on.

[@richardsilva-spokane3436]

Great perspective 👍

[@francispaulmarottikal1839]

Nice one☝ thanks🙏🙇

[@peterwolf6648]

Still fairly speculative claims. How can these be validated experimentally?

[@LPPFusion]

Well, unlike BB theory, we are only using here physical theories--nuclear reactions, gravity, electromagnetism, plasma physics--which have all been validated in the lab. Then we test the predictions against observations--as we show in some of the charts.

[@papinbala]

play at 1.5 speed

[@calvinwilburn2619]

Now if there were only something to be done about the mouth noises

[@dulapioru]

God bless you, i can watch all his movies now. Thank you so much:D

[@phdtobe]

papinbala I’m only smart enough to listen at 1.25x and still only hear the words clearly without necessarily being able to understand what they mean.

[@brucepierson9941]

Awesome, thanks!

[@johnnycampbell3422]

I can't track everything said at 1x, at 1.5x I may not track any at all. Thanks for saying you are so smart.

[@BenTrem42]

Electron filaments ... baryon streams? _("Baryon acoustic oscillations")_

[@tonyb8660]

"Neutrinos are very good at social distancing..." lmao we got Shecky Greene over here