Science, Philosophy, and the Plasma Universe

Wikipedia is a useful reference for established views, but it is not a neutral arbiter of scientific truth. Its editorial model tends to reflect prevailing views, sometimes at the expense of emerging or unconventional ideas.

Today, Wikipedia — an increasingly influential reference point for scientific consensus — states: “Cosmologists and astrophysicists who have evaluated plasma cosmology reject it because it does not match the observations of astrophysical phenomena as well as the currently accepted Big Bang model.”

The phrase “currently accepted” deserves emphasis. Scientific consensus is not a verdict; it is a snapshot. The plasma universe model challenges aspects of the prevailing framework — particularly where its foundations remain uncertain or contested. Models evolve, assumptions are revised, and uncertainties remain.

Does plasma cosmology claim to have all the answers? No — and neither should any scientific theory. It emphasises open questions and the importance of continued investigation, rather than equating incomplete knowledge with settled certainty.

Readers are encouraged to approach all sources with critical thinking and to compare perspectives where possible.

"We should remember that there was once a discipline called Natural Philosophy. Unfortunately, this discipline seems not to exist today. It has been renamed science, but the science of today is in danger of losing much of the natural philosophy aspect. Scientists tend to resist interdisciplinary inquiries into their own territory. In many instances, such parochialism is founded on the fear that intrusion from other disciplines would compete unfairly for limited financial resources and thus diminish their own opportunity for research."
Hannes Alfvén, 1986

It is easy to forget that science is rooted in philosophy. Empiricism is the method by which we gain knowledge through observation and measurement. At older universities, long-established Chairs of Natural Philosophy are now occupied by Professors of Physics.

See the next page on scepticism for an overview of two of the leading philosophers of science, Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn.

The Natural Philosophy Alliance is a group of people who believe that many mainstream/consensus ideas in physics and cosmology, including relativity, quantum theory, and the Big Bang, are irredeemably flawed. Its emphasis is on restoring philosophy to science by encouraging critical examination of prevailing assumptions and placing evidence above consensus or ideology.

In recent years, the Electric Universe and the NPA have run a number of successful joint conferences.

In July 2013, the founder of the Electric Universe, Wal Thornhill, was awarded the prestigious Sagnac Award for lifetime achievement at the 20th annual conference of the Natural Philosophy Alliance at the University of Maryland, College Park, USA.

Traditionally, we think of the scientific method comprising the following stages.

1 Observation 2 Hypothesis 3 Prediction 4 Testing

Richard Feynman, however, argued that "There is no such thing as 'the' scientific method. Science uses many methods. There will never be a pat answer to the question 'what is science'. The very notion that there could be a pat answer bespeaks an attachment to rote learning that is incompatible with scientific thinking."

Nonetheless, it is possible to distinguish between the approaches commonly favoured by Big Bang cosmologists and Plasma Cosmologists.

"The burden of proof has been inverted ... unpopular claims require extraordinary evidence. Popular claims only seem to require a show of hands."
Stuart Talbott, Thunderbolts Project

Following in the footsteps of their distinguished predecessors, plasma physicists tend to adopt an Actualistic approach: working backwards from observation and embracing a broad, interdisciplinary view of science. Kristian Birkeland, for example, combined mathematical insight with direct experimentation and observation. He is well known for his Terella experiments (see History I) and for his expeditions to polar regions to observe auroral phenomena at first hand.

By contrast, Big Bang cosmology often reflects a preference for what might be described as a more Prophetic approach, beginning with idealised mathematical principles. This method has a long and instructive history, but it is not without its difficulties. For example:

1. Sidney Chapman’s mathematical models failed to predict the complex, three-dimensional structure of the Earth’s magnetosphere.

2. The kinetic theory of ordinary gases fails to predict the behaviour of plasmas (originally termed ionised gases) because of their electrodynamic interactions. Mathematics that works well for neutral gases does not readily extend to plasma systems.

3. Ptolemaic epicycles were mathematically elegant and effective in prediction, yet failed to identify the underlying mechanism.

4. The prophetic approach frequently introduces hypothetical entities in advance of observation. Concepts such as dark matter and dark energy are invoked to balance cosmological models. While such proposals are not inherently problematic, their scale — now suggested to account for the majority of the universe — invites careful scrutiny.

5. Mathematical arguments were once used to assert that heavier-than-air flight was impossible — a conclusion later overturned by experiment.

“After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of humility.”
— Halton Arp

“We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”
— Hannes Alfvén

The importance of mathematics in science cannot be denied. It is an essential tool for both measurement and prediction, principles on which science is based, but history teaches us to be cautious before relying on mathematics as a starting point.

"I am acutely aware of the fact that the marriage between mathematics and physics, which was so enormously fruitful in past centuries, has recently ended in divorce."
Freeman Dyson

Ptolemaic epicycles, mentioned above, highlight the dangers of the mathematical approach. They were a series of circular orbits within orbits, and with sufficient refinement they could continue to reproduce planetary motions remarkably well. The point is that, although mathematically correct, and indeed elegant, they failed to reflect the underlying reality.

Einstein himself had reservations about the mathematical approach favoured by expanding-universe proponents:

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself any more."

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

In other words, maths should be subordinate to physics... not the other way around.

"...Lorentz, in order to justify his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and the aether, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the aether and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory..."
Herbert Dingle, Science at the Cross-Roads.

"One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything." Ockham's Razor

"There is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form." Richard Feynman

Alleged time dilation is often cited as conclusive evidence for General Relativity, but caution is urged before accepting interpretations of tenuous evidence in this regard. Could confirmation bias be the significant factor?

When NASA put atomic clocks on aircraft and on the Space Shuttle, they claim to have observed time dilation. However, these results have been contested by Dr A. G. Kelly, who examined the raw data. According to him, the final published outcome had to be averaged in a biased way in order to claim such a high degree of precision. Louis Essen, the inventor of the atomic clock, also published an article in which he discussed the inadequate accuracy of the experiments.

It is often claimed that GPS satellites are adjusted for Einstein's GRT, but this can also be disputed in the light of the above. Check out this fascinating website: Anti-Relativity. According to the US Naval Laboratory:

"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require."

Adjustments are made, but this is because clocks at high altitudes tick faster, resulting from variations in air density (the air is denser closer to the Earth's surface). Atomic clocks are also sensitive to temperature and pressure changes in their orbit.

Wal Thornhill examines the cult of Einstein and the time dilation fallacy. "I'm no Einstein," Einstein once joked about the uncritical hero worship that began in his lifetime. To be fair to him, he was a reluctant hero.

"You can imagine that I look back on my life's work with calm satisfaction. But from nearby it looks quite different. There is not a single concept of which I am convinced that it will stand firm, and I feel uncertain whether I am in general on the right track."
Albert Einstein

Critics argue that the modern concept of spacetime places excessive emphasis on mathematical abstraction over physical mechanism. From this perspective, clocks measure time; they do not create it. A clock may be affected by gravity or electromagnetic conditions, but that does not necessarily imply that time itself is being altered.

It is important to add a caveat to the above. When time contraction and length dilation can be observed, it doesn't lend credence to Special Relativity within the fantastical spacetime framework.

"Poincaré's advancement of Lorentz's aether is mathematically indistinguishable from 'Special Relativity,' while being utterly opposed to Minkowski's diagrams and formalisation of 'isotropic constancy' found in the spacetime metaphysics regime."
Anti-relativity.com

One consequence is that increasingly complex mathematics can make aspects of modern theoretical physics difficult for non-specialists to evaluate independently.

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
Albert Einstein

See my blog Einstein and the cult of celebrity

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." Albert Einstein

Contrary to popular misconception, the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't sound the death knell for æther physics. It did not show a null result, only speeds less than expected for æther drift. Subsequent work by Dayton Miller also reported persistent fringe shifts which he interpreted as evidence of æther drift, though such findings remain controversial and are typically dismissed by mainstream physics as artefacts of temperature and experimental conditions. Even so, the history is far less clear-cut than the simplified textbook story suggests.

Moreover, a return to an æther model would gel neatly with the emerging Plasma Universe paradigm. The æther of classical physics can be thought of as a fine elastic medium, or plenum, that permeates everything.

Nor did Einstein's interpretation entirely erase the older view. Lorentz and FitzGerald had already proposed length contraction as a physical effect arising from motion through the æther. Einstein preserved the mathematics, but dispensed with the medium that had originally given it physical meaning. In that sense, one may argue that the æther was not so much disproven as redefined out of the picture.

In recent decades, the picture has become still more intriguing. The "vacuum" of modern physics is no longer truly empty. Quantum field theory describes it as a sea of fluctuating fields, zero-point energy, and transient virtual particles that permeate all of space. While most physicists reject any comparison with the classical æther, critics argue that the distinction is increasingly one of terminology rather than principle. The medium may have disappeared in name, yet modern physics increasingly attributes to the vacuum many of the physical properties once associated with the classical æther.

Could an æther-like medium also help explain wave-particle duality, another longstanding puzzle in modern physics? Modern physics generally accepts wave-particle duality as a fundamental feature of nature, but whether it represents a complete explanation or simply a description remains open to philosophical debate. Common sense suggests that waves require a medium. Tesla certainly thought so, arguing that light propagates through a dielectric æther rather than empty space.

"I consider this extremely important. Light cannot be anything else but a longitudinal disturbance in the æther, involving alternate compressions and rarefactions. In other words, light can be nothing else than a sound wave in the æther."
Nikola Tesla

The æther was not so much disproven as it was abandoned — set aside in favour of mathematical convenience, rather than decisively ruled out by experiment.

It is not the purpose of this website to debate the relative merits of science and religion. Alfvén, however, warned against the dangers of trying to reconcile the two:

"I was there when Abbé Georges Lemaître first proposed this theory [Big Bang]. Lemaître was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo, or creation out of nothing."

"There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."

The belief that we know almost all there is to know, and that there are only a few loose ends to tie up, is sometimes referred to as Horganism, after John Horgan, a senior writer at Scientific American. In his book, The End of Science, he rejects the idea that any major new discoveries remain to be made.

The history of science suggests that such confidence (arrogance, perhaps) is ill-founded. Many share the view that we have barely scratched the surface.

"The public has a distorted view of science because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths. In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is a continuing exploration of mysteries."
Freeman Dyson