A Beginner's View of Our Electric Universe - New

This superficially logical assumption was later to become the acorn that
grew into the notion of ‘The Big Bang’. This name was coined by the
famous English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle during a radio interview as a
suspected term of derision due to his rejection of the idea. After all, and
amongst other things, the idea was that everything in our universe began ?
with its origin at one point within ... nothingness! However, if the ideas
around redshift were correct then there was indeed room to assume that
a Big Bang could have happened and that by implication for so many
good folks, this would also suggest that the Bible’s moment of creation
had been proved by science, no less! Understandably, religions all over
the world went cock-a-hoop at the idea, but as we will see, redshift has been under critical inspection for a long
time. Many more and far better quality observations and analyses of data have, over the years, shown that the
redshift factor and what it has been used for has resulted in ideas and practices founded on very shaky ground
indeed. Take a moment to think how serious a suggestion this is. It brings into question the whole idea of a Big
Bang event and religion’s reliance upon a supposed scientifically proven moment of creation.
The story of Comets [1-12] is a great one to further highlight the intractable problems faced by today’s SM.
Comets have long been described in the following terms: They are lumps of loosely-packed, dirty, icy material
that travel on long elliptical orbits within our Solar System. As they
get close to the Sun they begin to sublimate (i.e. they convert their
solid icy surface material directly into gas) as part of a process that
accounts for the enormous ‘glowing cloud’ often seen surrounding
them and the long tails they produce behind them. All the material
expelled from a comet’s surface that is showered into space as gas
and dusty debris is said to occur as a result of this process.
Over recent decades there have been many close-up observations
of comets and a much better analysis of their behaviour than had
previously been possible. The questions that have arisen from the
results obtained now stand as serious points against the dirty snowball model. The evidence now is that comets
are far different in their make-up than we have been led to believe. In view of this better quality information
being available, it seems incredible that the astro-science establishment continues to hold on to its dirty old
snowball theory. Again, we will be looking in detail later at the evidence that explains what comets really are
and why they behave as they do.
20 | What the problem is
The Big Bang - an impossible explosion in nothingness? © author
The ‘tails’ of a comet © author