But...the Big Bang Theory is fact...Right? But....the telescope may be saying no? And that is for climate people too....

[2aguy]

So.......as those of us who do not believe in the man made global warming cult keep telling you......you don't know what you are talking about when you demand we give up our lives to your cult of global warming emotion.....

How does this apply to the thread title?

Remember the Big Bang Theory....they named a t.v. show after it after all........this was the way everything came to be....a big explosion (the bang part of the Big Bang Theory) that made everything that exists........no, don't mention God here, the scientists today, unlike in the past, don't like to talk about God........

But.....ummmm.....errrrr......that shiny, new, expensive telescope that was all the rage 10 seconds ago? Is causing some heartburn and perhaps buyers remorse....

And if a theory like the "Big Bang Theory," is looking a teeny, tiny bit different today, because of that telescope....you'all need to stop telling us you know everything about our climate with the barest of knowledge of what is going on....

Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.
-----------
I’m not going to pretend that I have the scientific mental horsepower to understand the mechanics behind all of this, but science journals are quoting people who certainly should be able to understand it. If the universe has been expanding since its inception 14 billion years ago, the constellations the furthest away from us should appear huge and have a certain amount of “red shift” in their light. But what Webb is showing us is almost exactly the opposite.

That’s a problem for the big bang theory. If the universe was born in a monumental blast with everything traveling outward at incredible speed, all of that matter should still be traveling and expanding. But it doesn’t appear to be. In fact, the universe might not really be expanding at all. And if it’s not expanding, then it probably didn’t come from a massive explosion at a single point in the void. If that’s the case… where did all of this stuff come from?

There are more issues to deal with. The most distant galaxies Webb has located are being seen when they were as little as 400 million years old, as determined by when the big bang is assumed to have happened. That means their stars should all still be hot and blue in color as all young stars are. But many of them are cooler and reddish in color, signifying that they should be at least a billion years old.

Astronomers looking at Webb: What if the Big Bang didn't happen?

hotair.com

 

[lg325]

A lot of scientific theory is just that theory. Some people fail to understand that. The thing I have always liked about science is new knowledge comes out all the time and that is why it is so interesting.

 

[Godboy]

So.......as those of us who do not believe in the man made global warming cult keep telling you......you don't know what you are talking about when you demand we give up our lives to your cult of global warming emotion.....

How does this apply to the thread title?

Remember the Big Bang Theory....they named a t.v. show after it after all........this was the way everything came to be....a big explosion (the bang part of the Big Bang Theory) that made everything that exists........no, don't mention God here, the scientists today, unlike in the past, don't like to talk about God........

But.....ummmm.....errrrr......that shiny, new, expensive telescope that was all the rage 10 seconds ago? Is causing some heartburn and perhaps buyers remorse....

And if a theory like the "Big Bang Theory," is looking a teeny, tiny bit different today, because of that telescope....you'all need to stop telling us you know everything about our climate with the barest of knowledge of what is going on....

Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.
-----------
I’m not going to pretend that I have the scientific mental horsepower to understand the mechanics behind all of this, but science journals are quoting people who certainly should be able to understand it. If the universe has been expanding since its inception 14 billion years ago, the constellations the furthest away from us should appear huge and have a certain amount of “red shift” in their light. But what Webb is showing us is almost exactly the opposite.

That’s a problem for the big bang theory. If the universe was born in a monumental blast with everything traveling outward at incredible speed, all of that matter should still be traveling and expanding. But it doesn’t appear to be. In fact, the universe might not really be expanding at all. And if it’s not expanding, then it probably didn’t come from a massive explosion at a single point in the void. If that’s the case… where did all of this stuff come from?

There are more issues to deal with. The most distant galaxies Webb has located are being seen when they were as little as 400 million years old, as determined by when the big bang is assumed to have happened. That means their stars should all still be hot and blue in color as all young stars are. But many of them are cooler and reddish in color, signifying that they should be at least a billion years old.

Astronomers looking at Webb: What if the Big Bang didn't happen?

hotair.com

There is a major flaw with this theory. The universe is currently expanding faster than the speed of light, so there will ALWAYS and forever be a limit to the distance we can see into space, unless this is a "closed universe", in which case its expansion will slow and then pull back in on itself and restart the whole thing again.

 

[2aguy]

A lot of scientific theory is just that theory. Some people fail to understand that. The thing I have always liked about science is new knowledge comes out all the time and that is why it is so interesting.

Yep......which is why the climate change emotionalists need to be stopped when they demand we give up modern life in order to obey their demands....

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Citizen Scientist reporting for duty. Lol.

 

[Hum Dinger]

There is a major flaw with this theory. The universe is currently expanding faster than the speed of light, so there will ALWAYS and forever be a limit to the distance we can see into space, unless this is a "closed universe", in which case its expansion will slow and then pull back in on itself and restart the whole thing again.

Whoever said that the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light? According to Einstein, nothing moves at the speed of light except light.

 

[Hum Dinger]

So.......as those of us who do not believe in the man made global warming cult keep telling you......you don't know what you are talking about when you demand we give up our lives to your cult of global warming emotion.....

How does this apply to the thread title?

Remember the Big Bang Theory....they named a t.v. show after it after all........this was the way everything came to be....a big explosion (the bang part of the Big Bang Theory) that made everything that exists........no, don't mention God here, the scientists today, unlike in the past, don't like to talk about God........

But.....ummmm.....errrrr......that shiny, new, expensive telescope that was all the rage 10 seconds ago? Is causing some heartburn and perhaps buyers remorse....

And if a theory like the "Big Bang Theory," is looking a teeny, tiny bit different today, because of that telescope....you'all need to stop telling us you know everything about our climate with the barest of knowledge of what is going on....

Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.
-----------
I’m not going to pretend that I have the scientific mental horsepower to understand the mechanics behind all of this, but science journals are quoting people who certainly should be able to understand it. If the universe has been expanding since its inception 14 billion years ago, the constellations the furthest away from us should appear huge and have a certain amount of “red shift” in their light. But what Webb is showing us is almost exactly the opposite.

That’s a problem for the big bang theory. If the universe was born in a monumental blast with everything traveling outward at incredible speed, all of that matter should still be traveling and expanding. But it doesn’t appear to be. In fact, the universe might not really be expanding at all. And if it’s not expanding, then it probably didn’t come from a massive explosion at a single point in the void. If that’s the case… where did all of this stuff come from?

There are more issues to deal with. The most distant galaxies Webb has located are being seen when they were as little as 400 million years old, as determined by when the big bang is assumed to have happened. That means their stars should all still be hot and blue in color as all young stars are. But many of them are cooler and reddish in color, signifying that they should be at least a billion years old.

Astronomers looking at Webb: What if the Big Bang didn't happen?

hotair.com

If you think that they were referring to the origin of the universe when they named the show 'The Big Bang Theory', you're not very bright!

 

[night_son]

So.......as those of us who do not believe in the man made global warming cult keep telling you......you don't know what you are talking about when you demand we give up our lives to your cult of global warming emotion.....

How does this apply to the thread title?

Remember the Big Bang Theory....they named a t.v. show after it after all........this was the way everything came to be....a big explosion (the bang part of the Big Bang Theory) that made everything that exists........no, don't mention God here, the scientists today, unlike in the past, don't like to talk about God........

But.....ummmm.....errrrr......that shiny, new, expensive telescope that was all the rage 10 seconds ago? Is causing some heartburn and perhaps buyers remorse....

And if a theory like the "Big Bang Theory," is looking a teeny, tiny bit different today, because of that telescope....you'all need to stop telling us you know everything about our climate with the barest of knowledge of what is going on....

Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.
-----------
I’m not going to pretend that I have the scientific mental horsepower to understand the mechanics behind all of this, but science journals are quoting people who certainly should be able to understand it. If the universe has been expanding since its inception 14 billion years ago, the constellations the furthest away from us should appear huge and have a certain amount of “red shift” in their light. But what Webb is showing us is almost exactly the opposite.

That’s a problem for the big bang theory. If the universe was born in a monumental blast with everything traveling outward at incredible speed, all of that matter should still be traveling and expanding. But it doesn’t appear to be. In fact, the universe might not really be expanding at all. And if it’s not expanding, then it probably didn’t come from a massive explosion at a single point in the void. If that’s the case… where did all of this stuff come from?

There are more issues to deal with. The most distant galaxies Webb has located are being seen when they were as little as 400 million years old, as determined by when the big bang is assumed to have happened. That means their stars should all still be hot and blue in color as all young stars are. But many of them are cooler and reddish in color, signifying that they should be at least a billion years old.

Astronomers looking at Webb: What if the Big Bang didn't happen?

hotair.com

The golden answer to mankind's most burning questions is: we don't know (yet).

 

[ABikerSailor]

Apparently, the OP doesn't understand the difference between "theory" and "fact"......................

Theory is what scientists THINK may be true based on the evidence collected thus far, but they don't actually know.

Fact is something that is true and has been verified to be so based on scientific discovery and the ability for that discovery to be repeated with the same result.

And, trying to paint it as true by referencing a television sitcom (which is anything BUT fact) is truly ridiculous.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Whoever said that the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light? According to Einstein, nothing moves at the speed of light except light.

Ever heard of a tachyon? Those move faster than the speed of light.

Tachyons: Facts about these faster-than-light particles

Tachyons are not just the stuff of science fiction.

www.space.com

And, Einstein himself came up with the Theory of Special Relativity which talks bout things moving faster than the speed of light.

Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity

Special relativity: It's like normal relativity, but special.

www.space.com

 

[2aguy]

Apparently, the OP doesn't understand the difference between "theory" and "fact"......................

Theory is what scientists THINK may be true based on the evidence collected thus far, but they don't actually know.

Fact is something that is true and has been verified to be so based on scientific discovery and the ability for that discovery to be repeated with the same result.

And, trying to paint it as true by referencing a television sitcom (which is anything BUT fact) is truly ridiculous.

Nope.... if you want to know the difference between "Theory," and "fact," just say you don't believe in man made global warming......try that and get back to us....

And you leftist, no sense of humor asshats don't get the humor in referencing the Big Bang Theory t.v. show......humorless mutants like you are just what the left loves....

 

[BlindBoo]

There was no big bang. It was the big spume.......

 

[BULLDOG]

So.......as those of us who do not believe in the man made global warming cult keep telling you......you don't know what you are talking about when you demand we give up our lives to your cult of global warming emotion.....

How does this apply to the thread title?

Remember the Big Bang Theory....they named a t.v. show after it after all........this was the way everything came to be....a big explosion (the bang part of the Big Bang Theory) that made everything that exists........no, don't mention God here, the scientists today, unlike in the past, don't like to talk about God........

But.....ummmm.....errrrr......that shiny, new, expensive telescope that was all the rage 10 seconds ago? Is causing some heartburn and perhaps buyers remorse....

And if a theory like the "Big Bang Theory," is looking a teeny, tiny bit different today, because of that telescope....you'all need to stop telling us you know everything about our climate with the barest of knowledge of what is going on....

Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.
-----------
I’m not going to pretend that I have the scientific mental horsepower to understand the mechanics behind all of this, but science journals are quoting people who certainly should be able to understand it. If the universe has been expanding since its inception 14 billion years ago, the constellations the furthest away from us should appear huge and have a certain amount of “red shift” in their light. But what Webb is showing us is almost exactly the opposite.

That’s a problem for the big bang theory. If the universe was born in a monumental blast with everything traveling outward at incredible speed, all of that matter should still be traveling and expanding. But it doesn’t appear to be. In fact, the universe might not really be expanding at all. And if it’s not expanding, then it probably didn’t come from a massive explosion at a single point in the void. If that’s the case… where did all of this stuff come from?

There are more issues to deal with. The most distant galaxies Webb has located are being seen when they were as little as 400 million years old, as determined by when the big bang is assumed to have happened. That means their stars should all still be hot and blue in color as all young stars are. But many of them are cooler and reddish in color, signifying that they should be at least a billion years old.

Astronomers looking at Webb: What if the Big Bang didn't happen?

hotair.com

You seem to be confused. Nobody said the "big bang theory" was proven fact. It was only said that given the knowledge we have now, the big bang theory seems to be the most likely of possibilities. Science is always happy to recieve new information that make former beliefs less likely. New beliefs are formed with the advent of each new bit of information. That's the way it works. That's the way it has always worked.

 

[Blues Man]

So.......as those of us who do not believe in the man made global warming cult keep telling you......you don't know what you are talking about when you demand we give up our lives to your cult of global warming emotion.....

How does this apply to the thread title?

Remember the Big Bang Theory....they named a t.v. show after it after all........this was the way everything came to be....a big explosion (the bang part of the Big Bang Theory) that made everything that exists........no, don't mention God here, the scientists today, unlike in the past, don't like to talk about God........

But.....ummmm.....errrrr......that shiny, new, expensive telescope that was all the rage 10 seconds ago? Is causing some heartburn and perhaps buyers remorse....

And if a theory like the "Big Bang Theory," is looking a teeny, tiny bit different today, because of that telescope....you'all need to stop telling us you know everything about our climate with the barest of knowledge of what is going on....

Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.
-----------
I’m not going to pretend that I have the scientific mental horsepower to understand the mechanics behind all of this, but science journals are quoting people who certainly should be able to understand it. If the universe has been expanding since its inception 14 billion years ago, the constellations the furthest away from us should appear huge and have a certain amount of “red shift” in their light. But what Webb is showing us is almost exactly the opposite.

That’s a problem for the big bang theory. If the universe was born in a monumental blast with everything traveling outward at incredible speed, all of that matter should still be traveling and expanding. But it doesn’t appear to be. In fact, the universe might not really be expanding at all. And if it’s not expanding, then it probably didn’t come from a massive explosion at a single point in the void. If that’s the case… where did all of this stuff come from?

There are more issues to deal with. The most distant galaxies Webb has located are being seen when they were as little as 400 million years old, as determined by when the big bang is assumed to have happened. That means their stars should all still be hot and blue in color as all young stars are. But many of them are cooler and reddish in color, signifying that they should be at least a billion years old.

Astronomers looking at Webb: What if the Big Bang didn't happen?

hotair.com

The actual truth is that we really don't know how thew universe came to be.

And we may never know.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Remember the Big Bang Theory....they named a t.v. show after it after all........this was the way everything came to be....a big explosion (the bang part of the Big Bang Theory) that made everything that exists........no, don't mention God here, the scientists today, unlike in the past, don't like to talk about God........

The interesting thing about the Big Bang Theory is that it pointed to a creator, not away from one. As one of my favorite Christian apologist used to put it....A Big Bang needs a Big Banger.

But.....ummmm.....errrrr......that shiny, new, expensive telescope that was all the rage 10 seconds ago? Is causing some heartburn and perhaps buyers remorse....

And if a theory like the "Big Bang Theory," is looking a teeny, tiny bit different today, because of that telescope....you'all need to stop telling us you know everything about our climate with the barest of knowledge of what is going on....

Tis the very nature of science to be constantly proving itself wrong.

 

[Godboy]

Whoever said that the universe was expanding faster than the speed of light? According to Einstein, nothing moves at the speed of light except light.

You ask a good question, one whose answer lies in the subtle difference between expansion that is faster than the speed of light and the propagation of information that is faster than the speed of light. The latter is forbidden by fundamental physical laws, but the former is allowed; that is, as long as you are not transmitting any information (like a light pulse), you can make something happen at a speed that is faster than that of light. The expansion of the Universe is a "growth" of the spacetime itself; this spacetime may move faster than the speed of light relative to some other location, as long as the two locations can't communicate with each other (or, in terms of light rays, these two parts of the Universe can't see each other). According to the theory of inflation, the Universe grew by a factor of 10 to the sixtieth power in less than 10 to the negative thirty seconds, so the "edges" of the Universe were expanding away from each other faster than the speed of light; however, as long as those edges can't see each other (which is what we always assume), there is no physical law that forbids it.

How can the Universe expand faster than the speed of light during inflation? (Advanced) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

Ask an Astronomer is run by volunteers in the Astronomy Department at Cornell University. We answer your astronomy questions. Please browse our archive first.

curious.astro.cornell.edu

 

[B. Kidd]

The golden answer to mankind's most burning questions is: we don't know (yet).

What??

Global warming caused an iceberg to sink the Titanic!!

 

[BULLDOG]

What??

Global warming caused an iceberg to sink the Titanic!!

What a childish remark.

 

[SavannahMann]

I know how the Universe was created. Here you go.

 

[22lcidw]

Citizen Scientist reporting for duty. Lol.

The easiest lie of the Climate crowd is that any area politically that is supported by them on the coasts and barrier islands are still building on them. Lie after lie after lie.