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

[Indeependent]

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?

How our view of reality might change overnight

hotair.com

My Astronomy "Big Bang Theory" Worshipper co-workers have been discussing this for the last 3 weeks.
You are correct...we know nothing.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Again….

Science is always happy to recieve new information

Say that when you are discussing global warming....see what happens...

 

[Augustine_]

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?

How our view of reality might change overnight

hotair.com

I cry for the stupidity regularly displayed in this country

 

[2aguy]

I cry for the stupidity regularly displayed in this country

Yes...but people are allowed to vote for the democrat party and belong to the democrat party, no matter how stupid that is...

 

[Augustine_]

Yes...but people are allowed to vote for democrat and belong to the democrat party, no matter how stupid that is...

Oh what a sick burn, bro. Fucking idiot

 

[BULLDOG]

Again….

Science is always happy to recieve new information

Say that when you are discussing global warming....see what happens...

Not a problem. New valid information will always be cause to reevaluate previous beliefs. That's how science works.

 

[whitehall]

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.

Man made global warming is a theory. The Ice Age is fact but who do you blame?

 

[Independentthinker]

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.

The great thing about science is that science almost always proves science was wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

The great thing about science is that science almost always proves science was wrong.

That is the purpose of science, to constantly strive to improve on the knowledge we have. The slow witted might have a hard time understanding how that is a good thing.

 

[MinTrut]

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?

How our view of reality might change overnight

hotair.com

BBT = Insanity

 

[Independentthinker]

That is the purpose of science, to constantly strive to improve on the knowledge we have. The slow witted might have a hard time understanding how that is a good thing.

So, if I had a nickel for every time science proved science wrong then I would be the world's first trillionaire. But, I get what you are saying, science is just about always wrong and yet the left want us to accept science as always being right.

 

[BULLDOG]

So, if I had a nickel for every time science proved science wrong then I would be the world's first trillionaire. But, I get what you are saying, science is just about always wrong and yet the left want us to accept science as always being right.

Scientific beliefs reflect what we believe to be the truth based on the best information we have at the time. With the addition of new "better" information, those beliefs are reevaluated in order to more accurately reflect the new, better information. As I said before, the slow witted often have a hard time understanding that that is a good thing.

 

[Independentthinker]

Scientific beliefs reflect what we believe to be the truth based on the best information we have at the time. With the addition of new "better" information, those beliefs are reevaluated in order to more accurately reflect the new, better information. As I said before, the slow witted often have a hard time understanding that that is a good thing.

That's a lot of words for agreeing with me that science is just about always wrong. So, all the times we believed in science in the past, we were wrong. Kind of makes you wonder if we should believe in current science, doesn't it?

 

[BULLDOG]

That's a lot of words for agreeing with me that science is just about always wrong. So, all the times we believed in science in the past, we were wrong. Kind of makes you wonder if we should believe in current science, doesn't it?

Using the best information available while knowing that those beliefs might change if more accurate information becomes available is the only rational way to figure out how the universe or a toaster, or anything else works,

 

[2aguy]

Not a problem. New valid information will always be cause to reevaluate previous beliefs. That's how science works.

Again…..say that man made global warming is wrong….see what happens.

 

[2aguy]

Scientific beliefs reflect what we believe to be the truth based on the best information we have at the time. With the addition of new "better" information, those beliefs are reevaluated in order to more accurately reflect the new, better information. As I said before, the slow witted often have a hard time understanding that that is a good thing.

Unless the new information goes against the left wing desire to use science to take power……

 

[BULLDOG]

Again…..say that man made global warming is wrong….see what happens.

I will be happy to as soon as new information indicates that to be true.

 

[BULLDOG]

Unless the new information goes against the left wing desire to use science to take power……

Doesn't matter. If new valid information is presented showing prier beliefs to be wrong, the entire scientific community will change it's beliefs. That's how it works.

 

[Independentthinker]

Using the best information available while knowing that those beliefs might change if more accurate information becomes available is the only rational way to figure out how the universe or a toaster, or anything else works,

Again, you're using a speech just to say I was right, in that science is almost always wrong and those are the baskets you want to put your eggs into, knowing that whatever we believe today will be found to be wrong in the future. And knowing that you still want to put your eggs in that basket that will be found to be wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

Again, you're using a speech just to say I was right, in that science is almost always wrong and those are the baskets you want to put your eggs into, knowing that whatever we believe today will be found to be wrong in the future. And knowing that you still want to put your eggs in that basket that will be found to be wrong.

Using the best available information is always the best way to make decisions. What do you propose that would be better?