Thanks Tim,
Very clear, my interest in the Electric model started with pictures of the cratering of the Moon and the strange features that can be seen. I came across a different explanation and followed the leads to the websites of Scott and Thornhill. I have no problem if they also think the solar system used to be a different place in the past, there you need evidence that is not yet available (and maybe never will). The Electric Sun hypothesis struck me as possibly a good idea. If that is true, the rest follows. So my main interest is in astrophysics, how stars work. In the Standard Model there are problems, and they need to be addressed (like the neutrino problem) and that's what the Electric model does. Now I'm no plasma physiscist, and since Wallace Thornhill is, I rely on his expertise for the model to work. If there is clear evidence against it, fine, but the problems of the Standard Model still need to be addressed. Neutrino oscillation could be an explanation, but we need direct evidence for that as well. Your comment on the lack of evidence for electrons flowing towards the Sun is also a matter of careful study. Absence of proof is not the same as proof of absence (as my chef always says). Nevertheless, we need the proof, otherwise, it all stops there. This is something I learned from this discussion, so how would I have found out, if I hadn't followed the model all the way and discuss it. This forum is (for me at least) an excellent place to hold some ideas against the light and see what it is made of. If a topic like the Electric model is stifled to protect innocent souls, no one will learn something from it. And since apparently I'm the deluded person here (for seeing truth in an electric model) I can tell you that I don't have a problem with being told the model is wrong. If anything I am more critcial of whatever appears in the scientific press.
Cheers.

Bravo, Dr. Thompson, very well said indeed!

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Wal Thornhill is by no means a "plasma physicist". He has a BA in physics, and I don't know what courses he took, but bachelor programs rarely include a specific class in plasma physics; it is usually covered in a very "survey" form, as part of the usual udergrad E&M courses. He has no graduate experience in physics that I am aware of, though he claims to have "sat in" ("audited" in the US) one or two courses while in England. His entire professional career was in computer systems management, or some closely related computer job. He has no publishing credits in physics at all. Don Scott, on the other hand, was on the electrical engineering faculty for the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, from which he retired. If any thing, it's Scott, and not Thornhill, who is the electrical "brains" behind the electric cosmos, though Thornhill is the spiritual leader of the clan. Electrical engineering curricula can include plasm physics to varying degrees, but I don't know what Scott's specific background is in that area. But he also is certainly not a plasma physicist. There are, in fact, no plasma physicists at all associtated with the electric cosmos model, although they like to make themselves look good by association with Anthony Perrat (The Plasma Universe), a Los Alamos plasma physicist who subscribes to the Alfven plasma cosmology, which is much different, though still quite non main-stream.

There was a "neutrino problem", but it is now essentially gone, and has been for several years. I addressed this directly, as the very first topic in my webpage On the "Electric Sun" Hypothesis, and also in more detail in another webpage, Solar Fusion & Neutrinos. The standard model has problems, but than all models always have problems. The real question one should ask is whether or not the problem, whatever it is, rises to the level of an intolerable conflict with observation, or with another well accepted theory. I think that only an intolerable conflict can justify replacing one hypothesis, or theory, with another. In the standrd model, there are no such intolerable conflicts. But with the electric cosmos, there are.

As you say, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It's a common line, and I disagree with it. Absence of evidence can be evidence of absence, but one has to consider each case on its own merits. In the case of the absence of evidence of electrons approaching the sun, this absence is compelling. It's not just one, or even a few spaceraft, in a few choice locations. It's literally dozens of spacecraft, scattered all over the solar system, but concentrated mostly at the equator. That's why Thornhill changed his tune some years ago, pointing to the solar pole as the place where the electron influx would be, since he knows as well as anyone else does, that the absence of electrons in the equatorial plane is too severe to deal with. Granted Ulysses is only one spacecraft, but it has covered both solar poles twice now, and nary an inbound electron in sight. But the magnetic field is streched radially even at the pole, and does not show a polar cusp. There is only one way anyone knows to do that, a steady outbound flow of electrons (an inbound flow would bend the field in the opposite direction). So all of the evidence, for decades, and both particles & fields, clearly indicates an absence of incoming electrons. But more than that, the configurations of fields & particles that we actually obvserve constitute an intolerable conflict with the hypothesis that there is an incoming stream. For one thing, an incoming flow of electrons would either rip the solar wind apart, or be ripped apart by the solar wind (the bigger flow wins). The radial magnetic field can only be maintained by an outward flow of electrons. The electrons cannot have an "undetectable energy" for several, simultaneous spacecraft (you might pull that off for one, but not two or more at once).

From where I sit, the standard model is very strong, and is consistent with everything we know about physics, and with all observations of the solar system, neutrinos very much included. On the other hand, the electric cosmos model is in direct conflict with much of what we know about physics, and with most observations of the solar system. So why choose the weaker model?

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

VanderL said, "Do you really think the public can't see through failing models and false arguments?"

Well, VanderL, a considerable fraction of the American public thinks that the Sun orbits the Earth, believes wholeheartedly in alien abductions, and has faith in astrology (add your own favorite crackpot belief) so I suppose I'd say that the answer to your query is yes.

Dave Mitsky

__________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
De gustibus non est disputandum.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Reading through this topic confirms the difficulty of holding, and honestly expressing, an opinion without the danger of receiving a response that is condescending, cynical or downright uncharitable.

John Fowler
Australia

Isn't this why we should abide by the rules?

Tim,
thanks again, all the references you gave are interesting and show how the Standard Model works. In my opinion the neutrino problem (in your words a minor problem) is only solved by an as yet unproven process of neutrino oscillation. Until this process is shown to really happen to the neutrino's coming from the Sun's core, I still consider there to be a problem. My remark that "absence of proof is no proof of absence" was only mentioned to leave open the possibility (however small) that there are electron flowing towards the Sun (this is called clutching at straws).
Also thanks for the insight of how the electric "clan" is organized, although I'm not sure if it will ultimately matter. The model is either wrong, or it's the beginning of a new paradigm.
Cheers.

Already done, twice.

Direct Evidence for Neutrino Flavor Transformation from Neutral-Current Interactions in the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, Q.R. Ahmad, et al., Physical Review Letters 89(1): 011301, July 1, 2002.

This report shows that the total number of neutrinos observed coming from the sun is equal to the total number of neutrinos that is predicted by the standard theory of nuclear fusion. The fusion reactions inside the sun create only electron type neutrinos. The early experiments that first established the "solar neutrino problem" could detect only electron type neutrinos, and did detect about 1/3 of the expected number. The hypothesis that neutrinos have mass, and can therefore "oscillate" between states, and become non-electron neutrinos on their way to Earth, was one proposed explanation for this deficit in observed neutrinos. So the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory set out to observe those non-electron neutrinos. It did observe them, and the totals all add up as they should, consistent with the hypothesis. If neutrino oscillation is not the correct explanation, then how else might one explain the fact that the total number of electron plus non-electron neutrinos, as obserbed at SNO, matches the total number of electron neutrinos that should be generated inside the sun by fusion processes?

First Results from KamLAND: Evidence for Reactor Antineutrino Disappearance, K. Eguchi, et al., Physical Review Letters 90(2): 021802, January 17, 2003.

This report shows the results of antineutrino measurements, as a function of distance from a neutrino source, using the Kamioka liquid Scintillator Anti-Neutrino Detector (KamLAND). They have observed a fall off in antineutrino counts, that is consistent with that expected by neutrino oscillation theory, as the antineutrinos they detect oscillate into other types. This is a terrestrial confirmation of the same basic process that also explains the SNO neutrino observations.

There is a considerable collection of references to papers for further study, and some web resources, on my Solar Fusion & Neutrinos webpage, which I encourage you to follow, up.

If these results seem unsatisfactory to you, perhaps you can tell us what you need to see, more specifically, before you will be convinced that conventional scientists are at least on the right track.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Thanks for your continued input Tim!

VanderL and Chook>>> Telling somebody their ideas about the universe are not logical is by no means against the forum rules (see the rules: http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.p...showtopic=1134). Nobody has broken any of them in this thread yet.

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Whenever words like hypocritical, evil, BS, whacky, wacko, nonsensical, insane and bold lettering are used as qualifiers, in my opinion at least, it is very close to being unfriendly and the rules do say something about that. By and large though it's ok, so don't lose any sleep over it.
Cheers.

Well, i am definitely NOT an astrophysicist, rather a humble physics teacher....it is interesting to note taht some of the references we used in class match up with what Dr. Thompson is saying. A student (a perticularly smart cooking) wrote a report (for extra credit!) about neutrino's using similar articles, thank you Dr. Thompson - your postings and references give me continued information that I may help my students with. (I'll probably end up working for them someday..)

Thank you once again Dr. Thompson, and I look forward to reading more of your contributions.

__________________
Damien,
Atmospheric Optics Instrumentation Major

Stars 'n' Stuff

Take heart, VanderL. I'm sure the great scientists (Galileo, etc.) were called worse. It's not right of course, but ........there it is!

__________________
The Force that through the green fuse drives the flower...drives my green age!
It is only with the heart that things can be seen clearly; what is essential is invisible to the eye!

Tim,
I've been trying to find out what the solar wind particles are, and I tried to follow your links, but there is only some general information, are there any specific publications or websites I can try?
Thanks.

subatomic particles? Mass convert to energy and energy create photons, ions and subatomic particles(higher energytic charge particles, such as proton and electron) from the sun's surface into the solar wind and solar wind carry those particle to Earth ----> space? h34r:

__________________
We come without a thing and gone without a thing. We need simple life. A cup of teas and a couple of meals per day, that is good enough. And this is my standard of living.

Overall Properties of the Solar Wind and Solar Wind Instrumentation: "The solar wind is approximately 95% protons (H+), 4% alpha particles (He++) and 1% minor ions, of which carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, neon, magnesium, silicon and iron are the most abundant. Solar wind velocity when measured in the ecliptic plane is normally in the range from 300 to 600 km/s, but under some conditions can exceed 1000 km/s. The energy of solar wind ions is from 0.5 to 2.0 keV/nucleon. The density of the solar wind is normally between 1 and 10 particles/cm^3, and the temperature associated with the random motion of the particles is in the range from 10^4 to 10^6 K. A second temperature, referred to as the coronal temperature, is used to characterize the solar wind, it is derived from the relative charge state distributions of the wind elements and is typically of the order of the temperature of the solar corona, 10^6 K (Hundhausen, 1972)."

The reference to Hundhausen is the book Coronal Expansion and Solar Wind, Springer-Verlag, 1972.

The reference is old, but not to worry, the sun has not changed remarkably since 1972. The fractional composition by species varies with the intensity of the solar magnetic field, and changing conditions at the sun. For instance, I have seen other sources that give the He++ fraction as high as 8%, compared to the 4% given here. But the trace elements rarely exceed 1%. The solar wind is also charge neutral, so there are as many electrons as protons and positively charged ions. The electrons are not mentioned in the abstract I quoted, because electrons are not an atomic nucleus (protons are the nuclei of hydrogen atoms), and they are talking about elemental compositions. Most researchers are interested in chemical composition, and so ignore the electrons, which are to them simply stuff that gets in the way of what they really want to know.

The Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) satellite, on orbit since 1997, offers a webpage for seeing real time solar wind parameters. Select the link for "Dynamic Plots", and then choose from the menu. The ACE plots show both protons & electrons. There are other sources for similar information, in other formats; Space Weather, from Rice University, Real Time Solar Wind Data from space.com, and SpaceWeather.com is a favorite spot for news about solar flares, and solar activity.

An electric current generates a magnetic field that wraps around the current in helical fashion (Ampere's Law). Any electrons inbound through the solar wind will experience complex magnetic fields, generated by the charged particles of the solar wind. In the case of both electrons & protons in the solar wind, the fields will be helical (but in opposite sense of twist), and tend to fling the incoming electrons into traectories perpendicular to their incoming flow. So, to ensure that enough electrons make it to the sun to power it, than there must be many more electrons in the original flow. And since the solar magnetic field is radial, this is true for all arrival directions. Furthermore, electrons so accelerated should generate synchrotron emission, and no such emission has been detected, so far as I know.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Many thanks Tim,
That's exactly what I need to know, I have come across a remark that said the solar wind can also be very low (it even stopped for 2 days in 1999?), I guess there is a plot somewhere in your links that shows the speed of the solar wind over the last decades, I'll have a look.
What happens at the heliosphere with the charged particles, is it a barrier, or will there be an acceleration? The Sun has a radial field, but I remember a "dancing skirt" animation where the neutral sheet (if the solar wind is charge neutral how can there be a neutral sheet?) is shown to change over time. What causes the drag on the field lines and again what happens at the outer boundary.
Another question is about current in the interplanetary region; we know there are charged particles and we know there is magnetism, but are there currents, in other words: do Birkeland currents or Birkeland ropes exist?
Thanks,
Louis.

I know I'm getting caught up here, so please forgive me if this has already been addressed. One could argue the Chicken vs. Egg line of reaoning here, but I must still think the theory comes first (sorry Kashi). A perfect examle of this would be Steven Hawkins first postulation of the existence of Black Holes before any emperical evidence was observed.
As for the notion of the Electric Universe, I do try to kep my mind open to new ways of thinking, but really can't embrace this concept. If somebody comes along asnd can really give it some mathematical validity, then I'll be happy to reexamine it at that time.

__________________
<span style='color:purple'>&quot;To Infinity and Beyond&quot; - Buzz Lightyear</span>

<span style='color:green'>http://www.mi-geocaching.org</span>

The solar wind speed, and other parameters, are all quite variable. Indeed, the solar wind did essentially stop, in May, 1999 (The Day the Solar Wind Disappeared). I don't know where you might find a long-term plot on the web, but I'm sure there is one somewhere if you poke around.

The volume of space dominated by the solar wind is called the heliosphere, the boundary between the heliosphere and interstellar space is the heliopause. The solar wind slows suddenly to sub-sonic speeds, creating a termination shock. Beyond that, there is a solar bow shock, where the interstellar medium is slowed by the solar magnetic field. It's all quite a complex affair. The Earth's magnetosphere behaves in much the same way, and we assume that the solar magnetosphere is a scaled up version of Earth's, there being no good reason to assume otherwise. The shocks and boundaries of the Earth's magnetosphere are well mapped and observed (and also quite variable in location and intensity). The heliopause, on the other hand, is as yet not directly observed, at least not unambiguously. Before Mars became big news, the Voyager I spacecraft may have passed through the termination shock of the solar wind (Voyager Spacecraft Approaches Solar System's Final Frontier).

There are electric currents flowing all over the solar system, quite as one would expect. the solar wind is a plasma, and magnetic fields can separate charges (electrons, being less massive, are more easily distracted by magnetic fields than are protons). The use of the term Birkeland current is just bad semantics on the part of the electric cosmos folks, who apply the term indiscrimanently to anything that vaguely resembles a terrestrial Birkeland current. Not all current in space are Birkeland, and most aren't, although some might properly be called that. For instance, there is a steady current loop between Jupiter and it's moon Io (The Io Dynamo). The solar magnetic field, driting with the solar wind, drapes over a cometary plasma, giving active comets a magnetoseath.

It's all quite complex, and there is no easy one-page answer to questions about magnetic fields and electric currents in the solar system. In general, the study of such things comes under the discipline heading of space physics or space plasma physics (in Europe more than the U.S.A., they like space science), and those are the proper literature/web search keywords. I recommend the online Oulu Space Physics Textbook as a good place to start. You can also try NASA's The Exploration of the Earth's Magnetosphere, or the education links from NASA's Sun-Earth Connection program.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

There is no fixed sequence, and in practice, scientists are as likely ot put theory before observtion, as they are to put observation before theory. Some observations, such as large scale sky surveys (like the SDSS) are certainly not intended either to affirm or deny any theory. Rather, they are done with the understanding that any theory will need to be tested against real data sooner or later, and fat lot of good it will do anybody to have no data when the time comes.

On the other hand, scientists do routinely make observations intended to affirm their own theories or deny somebody else's theory. But sometimes it's just a matter of "NGC 7023 is a really interesting thing, let's look at it!".

Science in practice does not conform to the popular conception of the "scientific method", and in fact there are as many scientific methods as there are scientists.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

I believe my comments were taken a little out of context jamerz3294. I'm sorry I didn't express myself as clearly as I could have.

What I meant was that theories cannot be properly adopted until after orbservations are seen to be in accordance with that theory. OF COURSE theories can be thought up (and even "proven" mathematically) before or after initial observations.

__________________
Climate Change Australia

Theories can come before or after observation, but either way the need to have observed evidence to be considered a 'correct' theory.

__________________
MacTalk - The Australian Apple Community - iPod, iPhone and Mac.

Tim, thanks for all the links.
Sometimes science is driven technologically, like looking through the first telescope.
Cheers.

I had a quick glance at the "holoscience" site...hmm...they claim that our current cosmological model is wrong because of discrepant redshifts. What are they? I remember a few years ago scientists were scratching their heads because there were 4 galaxies (I think), seemingly gravitationally linked, but one had a different redshift. They've sinced resolved the dilemma by proving that the discrepant galaxy was NOT gravitationally related to the others (just looked that way in our line of sight!). Also they've noticed distant supernovae with redshifts at odds with their apparent magnitudes...once again, resolved by the realization that the cosmic expansion is accelerating. I would be curious to hear if there's any other discrepancies out there?? I don't see any serious challenges to the Big Bang model...?? Correct me if I'm wrong!

Here is some challenges to the big bang theory Faulkner, I could give more, I could probably give you three or four links to contradict any theory that we are yet unable to prove... For those who say we are at the end of science - we are just at the beginning, we really don't know much about our universe or its origins yet.

***
Interview with John Keirein, Physicist: How the Big Bang is WRONG!!! Compton Effect & the Red Shift
http://www.ncoic.com/compton/compton8.htm

Either the big bang's wrong or general relativity's wrong. ... Entropy must be wrong for the big bang to be possible 6: The singularity was there... ...
http://www.geocities.com/babooshka4761/bang.html

Another
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/d...dp5/explode.htm
***

Hmm, that's some food for thought. I found Keirein's idea of the Compton Effect explaining astronomical redshift to be debunked here. Looks like he has to plug in some of his own values to get the results he's after - thus alienating his model from real world observations/measurements...

Some other interesting points, tho'...for example, how does the Big Bang singularity manage to explode beyond its event horizon? Actually, I don't think it does. We are still inside that event horizon!

Entropy doesn't increase? Hmm, looks that way, doesn't it? Structured galaxies condensing out of chaotic energies...the evolution of life (on Earth & elsewhere?)...I think a physicist would answer this by saying these are small-scale organizings of complexity against a larger general sweep of cosmic entropy. The Universe (over trillions of years - not billions) will die a slow heat death... That's not to say that during its colossal history there haven't been some incidents of complex organization (seemingly in defiance of the principle of entropy!)... Chaos theory predicts random assemblages of chaos into order...!

Yeah, evolutionary theory is always the thorn in many people's sides, too. I agree, it seems impossible that (given random natural selection) life can organize itself from a sea-cucumber into a human being...or any other sentient lifeform we see around us, for that matter (humans ain't that special!)...in such a "short" time!!! Still, I think it's the best explanation we've got - short of miraculous divine intervention (except our Universe doesn't seem to operate on miracles, but laws of physics!?)... I have read, however, a possible solution... We all know that complex organic molecules can form quickly & easily from the primordial soup (the ol' Miller-Urey experiment proved this)... There is the hypothesis (search "Graham Cairns-Smith") that these organic compounds were (by fluke) shaped into even more complex structures by using natural-formed crystals, like a mould, or scaffold. The crystals broke, growing more crystals = replication!

May be worthwhile checking this link out - a chronology of the biological sciences. Check out some of the later discoveries/advances (ie post-1950). Quite enlightening!! (Evolutionary theory ain't just a pretty face!)...

As for the eternal question "Where did the Big Bang singularity come from?"...well I don't think ANYONE's brave enough to answer this one. Hawking offers a neat solution (mathematically)...but it's also a bleak one...go look it up yourself (or read "A Brief History of Time"!)... I prefer the thesis that it is one big scientific experiment being performed by the Demonic Gods themselves!!!

I don't think I've addressed all your points, Bluewolf. But I think (for now) I'm gonna stick to my guns & stay with Big Bang cosmology & evolutionary theory - until something BETTER comes along!!!!??

I actually never meant to say that the big bang theory was wrong in any way. Only trying to suggest that at our current state of knowledge of the universe - real proof or dis-proof is a long way off on most of the theories that we hold as the truth today

I would totally agree we are a long long way away from grasping that Magical Orb of absolute truth. Maybe we never will. But I do believe our knowledge is evolving...not that we simply, over history, replace one "scientific world view" with the next. It's like tunnelling down a mine shaft - little shafts branch out & stop, but the main shaft continues...Will it ever stop? Or will it one day open out into a gigantic unexpected cavern??? Maybe we will fall out of the bottom of the world??

now we are rapidly expanding into the Theories of the Universe thread, elsewhere on the board. Indeed, we should not overestimate the extent to which we really understand the cosmology of the universe. On the other hand, neither should we underestimate ourselves. We're actually capable of being fairly smart, when we feel like it.

Some things make sense, and some things don't, and we all know that much. The "electric cosmos" is one example of a purely crackpot, nonsense approach to science. It's literally insulting, that anybody who knows anything could take that kind of garbage seriously. But there are other, more serious alternatives to standard, big bang cosmology. The trouble is, they all have their problems too, just as any theory or hypothesis will, so you have to decide not necessarily which one is "best", but rather which one is "least worst". Big bang cosmology is a really successful theory, and in all of its fundamental characteristics, is easily coimpatible with observation. Not all of the alternatives are so happy.

Discordant or discrepant redshifts refers to the observations (primarily championed by Halton Arp), of galaxies (or galaxy - quasar systems), in close proximity on the sky, but significantly different redshifts. The argument is that if the redshift is truly cosmological, and the objects are at significantly different distances, then there are too many of these close associations for chance alignments to explain. Or, in some cases, there appear to be connecting bridges of material between objects of significantly different redshifts, implying that they are at the same distance, and physically connected. But the former argument depends on a vaild statistical argument, and there have as yet been no unambiguously reasonable arguments put forth. And the latter argument is too widely open to interpretation of ambiguities in the images. How can you tell if two things are actually connected, or whether an arm of one is superimposed in front of the others? Spectroscopy can do this, and reaveals in a few of the few known examples, that the connection is illusory. On the other hand, there are better examples, where this does not appear to be the case. But do they rise to the level of challenge where all of big bang cosmology is called into question? I think not, especially in light of the fact that standard cosmology does include copious opportunities already for non-cosmological redshifts (such as found in high speed jet systems). These observations won't challenge big bang cosmology reasonably untill they are less ambiguous.

There are several "popular" challenges to standard cosmology, but most not very good. Ned Wright's Cosmological Fads & Fallacies exposes the weak side of several (and his Cosmology Tutorial is the best on the web, I think). But go to the library and see Standard cosmology and alternatives: A critical appraisal, Jayant Narlikar & T. Padmanabhan, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol 39, pp 211-248, 2001 (there's no web copy available without a subscription). Narlikar was Hoyle's student, and is the current champion of the quasi steady state cosmology (QSSC). But unlike most critics, he is also a real expert in standard cosmology (his textbook An Introduction to Cosmology, Cambridge Universoty Press, 3rd ed., 2002, is very good, and the only one I know of that includes a high level discussion of alternative cosmologies). But even Narlikar admits the obvious: big bang cosmology is the most widely accepted because it really is the best fit to observation. But Narlikar thinks, and rightly so, that all theories should be challenged, and he works to challenge big bang cosmology with a viable alternative. As a result, either QSSC will someday be the top dog, or big bang cosmology will become an even stronger theory than it already is, or maybe some unanticiparted alternative will rise to the top.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Thanks for that link Tim - the tutorial is enlightening. I share your opinion of the electric universe theory. I would also tend to agree that of the theories we have today the big bang theory fits the best with what we do know.

Could you direct me to a place to buy the text that you mentioned, the only one I can find "An Introduction to Cosmology" is by Jeremy Bernstein.

Amazon.com has Narlikar's book (Introduction to Cosmology), but they say there are only 3 left in stock. If it's still in print, you might also order it through any local book store, or directly from Cambridge University Press. Despite the title word "introduction", this is not a book for lay-readers, it is aimed at advanced undergraduate and graduate students in physics and/or astronomy. I don't know your background, but if that's not it, another really good intro, much more reader friendly for non-advanced readers, is Edward Harrison's Cosmology : The Science of the Universe, which gets my vote as the best cosmology book around today. Harrison is a good writer, and one of the God-fathers of modern cosmology. The book includes "projects" for readers to think about, and "perspectives" that go beyond the usual narrow focus questions. I also highly recommend Harrison's Masks of the Universe: Changing Ideas on the Nature of the Cosmos, a history of cosmology from mediaeval times to today, a good read.

__________________
The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it. -- Bertrand Russell

Tim, I think that's taking it one step too far. The model is either wrong , it's interesting but wrong, or it's interesting but very unlikely. All the other qualifications are your personal opinion. You may be right about the fact that this model is incorrect, but that doesn't mean that it's garbage. There is no need to use those words to qualify an effort to explain the Universe from a different point of view.
Why the venom? I see no danger in people having a different opinion, it's really quite simple; the model is wrong or it isn't. This looks more and more like a crusade to me.

About the redshift controversy, the only thing that really helps solve it, is good observations and as long as those data are not available there will be a discussion (and rightly so).

Thanks for the links on cosmology.
Cheers.