The Sound of Settled Science: Origin of the Universe Edition

[Weatherman2020]

The idea that all the matter in the known universe had once existed in the form of a particle the size of “nothing” is taking a beating.


To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’stitle begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”

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. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”

The Big Bang didn't happen | Eric Lerner

The Big Bang Hypothesis - which states the universe has been expanding since it began 14 billion years ago in a hot and dense state - is contradicted by the new James Webb Space Telescope images, writes Eric Lerner.

iai.tv

 

[fncceo]

When Galileo, Kepler, and Huygens first used crude telescopes to scan the heavens, they were able to use the new knowledge to create a more accurate view of our known Universe.

Centuries later, using much larger and more precise telescopes, Edwin Hubble was able to discover that our galaxy is only one of many such galaxies. He discovered that the light we see from those other galaxies is red-shifted to imply they are traveling away from us ... the further away, the faster they are moving away from us.

Only a few decades later, scientist looking not with light but with radio discovered background radiation in the EM spectrum over every spot in The Universe.

Each successive discovery added to our knowledge of The Cosmos and amended how we look at it and allows us to speculate how it was created and what will happen to it in the future As our technology increases we pick up more pieces of the puzzle. Every time we add a piece, we see the picture a bit more clear.

It's the job of science to take what we can see of the puzzle and extrapolate, based only on what we know to be true, what the full picture may look like some day.

I would be very surprised that today's theories remain unchanged by tomorrow's data. It doesn't mean those theories are bad. Ptolemy's model of The Solar System (with us at the center) was the best fit for the knowledge that existed at the time. There was nothing wrong with it other than the fact that new information ultimately proved it wrong.

 

[pknopp]

It doesn't mean the theories are bad based upon known knowledge but it does mean they remained as theories.

I at first was going to note that theories are never settled science but I agree that many seemed to act as if it was.

 

[Flash]

The big bang theory is predicated on two flimsy pieces of evidence. Background noise and the red shift that indicates an expanding universe.

The Webb telescope has already put doubt on the BBT. It has shown galaxies that should not exist if there was a BB.

Then you have this magic shit of the universe creating itself out of nothing and all the matter in universe from trillions of galaxies once being the size of a head of a pin. Not to mention BBT goes against The Laws of Physics.

We don't know jackshit on how the universe came into being.

 

[Weatherman2020]

When Galileo, Kepler, and Huygens first used crude telescopes to scan the heavens, they were able to use the new knowledge to create a more accurate view of our known Universe.

Centuries later, using much larger and more precise telescopes, Edwin Hubble was able to discover that our galaxy is only one of many such galaxies. He discovered that the light we see from those other galaxies is red-shifted to imply they are traveling away from us ... the further away, the faster they are moving away from us.

Only a few decades later, scientist looking not with light but with radio discovered background radiation in the EM spectrum over every spot in The Universe.

Each successive discovery added to our knowledge of The Cosmos and amended how we look at it and allows us to speculate how it was created and what will happen to it in the future As our technology increases we pick up more pieces of the puzzle. Every time we add a piece, we see the picture a bit more clear.

It's the job of science to take what we can see of the puzzle and extrapolate, based only on what we know to be true, what the full picture may look like some day.

I would be very surprised that today's theories remain unchanged by tomorrow's data. It doesn't mean those theories are bad. Ptolemy's model of The Solar System (with us at the center) was the best fit for the knowledge that existed at the time. There was nothing wrong with it other than the fact that new information ultimately proved it wrong.

Except if you as a scientist have a theory that doesn’t conform to present day beliefs, you’re pigeon holed and will never be funded.

That’s via a friend who’s one of the world leaders in black holes.

 

[excalibur]

And what if God has been having a big joke on them all along?

Anyway, I never accepted the 'Big Bang Theory. It always seemed a cut-and-paste explanation of what the scientists couldn't explain.

...
Many of them have already begun reporting that there’s something not quite right with the seemingly endless parade of ancient and frequently small galaxies out there. Few are saying it out loud yet, but they are speculating that one theory that has been taken as fact for a very long time now may not have been correct. The dreaded conclusion could turn out to be that the big bang theory is wrong and it may never have happened. (ia.tv)

To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”

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. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic.

Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, is quoted as saying, “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”


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 galaxies 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.

According to Big Bang theory, the most distant galaxies in the JWST images are seen as they were only 400-500 million years after the origin of the universe. Yet already some of the galaxies have shown stellar populations that are over a billion years old. Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur.

...​

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

hotair.com

 

[Mac1958]

No one knows for sure how we got here.

There are still a few curious people out there, so maybe they'll get us a little closer.

 

[Flash]

The Big Bang Theory has always been a place holder to explain the unexplainable. It is actually based on only two pieces of evidence. The cosmic background noise and the red shift that means the universe is expanding.

The Webb telescope is blowing a big hole in the theory. Those distant mature galaxies should not be there if the BBT happen.

"Science Bitch!!!!"

 

[james bond]

The idea that all the matter in the known universe had once existed in the form of a particle the size of “nothing” is taking a beating.


To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’stitle begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”

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. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”

The Big Bang didn't happen | Eric Lerner

The Big Bang Hypothesis - which states the universe has been expanding since it began 14 billion years ago in a hot and dense state - is contradicted by the new James Webb Space Telescope images, writes Eric Lerner.

iai.tv

It sounds like we're back to steady state theory -- steady-state theory | Definition & Facts.

I'm not sure what to make of what JWST shows since I grew up with the Einstein's TOGR and before that George LeMaitre and Hubble's Law.

 

[fncceo]

Except if you as a scientist have a theory that doesn’t conform to present day beliefs, you’re pigeon holed and will never be funded.

That’s via a friend who’s one of the world leaders in black holes.

Yes, that's true. The scientific method is, and has always been, reliant on dirty politics. Galileo was imprisoned and nearly executed for his contributions to science. Many other ground-breaking scientists languished in obscurity until others proved their work over and over.

We live in an imperfect world.

 

[ChemEngineer]

The Big Bang Theory has always been a place holder to explain the unexplainable. It is actually based on only two pieces of evidence. The cosmic background noise and the red shift that means the universe is expanding.

The Webb telescope is blowing a big hole in the theory. Those distant mature galaxies should not be there if the BBT happen.

1. How many "pieces of evidence" do you require, and why?

2. Distant galaxies should be there. The variable which will elegantly explain them is the relativity of time, which has already been demonstrated, if not perhaps in all its variations.

 

[Flash]

1. How many "pieces of evidence" do you require, and why?

2. Distant galaxies should be there. The variable which will elegantly explain them is the relativity of time, which has already been demonstrated, if not perhaps in all its variations.

As an Engineer that understands The Laws of Physics I have a hard time understanding how the universe created itself out of nothing and that all these hundreds of billions, if not trillions of galaxies were once condensed into the size of a head of a pin.

That cosmic background noise evidence may also be flawed because we may be hearing interference from earth made sources.

Anyway, when I hear (from credible scientific sources) that those galaxies should not be there if there was a BB then I am inclined to accept it.

But what the hell do I know? I am an Environmental Engineer. Half Chemical and half Civil. I spent most of my technical career negotiating pollution cleanup projects with the stupid EPA. In reality I don't know jackshit on how the universe came into being.

With all due respect I doubt you do either. I also suspect the professionals that do it for a living don't really know much more than you and I.

 

[Weatherman2020]

As an Engineer that understands The Laws of Physics I have a hard time understanding how the universe created itself out of nothing and that all these hundreds of billions, if not trillions of galaxies were once condensed into the size of a head of a pin.

That cosmic background noise evidence may also be flawed because we may be hearing interference from earth made sources.

Anyway, when I hear (from credible scientific sources) that those galaxies should not be there if there was a BB then I am inclined to accept it.

But what the hell do I know? I am an Environmental Engineer. Half Chemical and half Civil. I spent most of my technical career negotiating pollution cleanup projects with the stupid EPA. In reality I don't know jackshit on how the universe came into being.

With all due respect I doubt you do either. I also suspect the professionals that do it for a living don't really know much more than you and I.

It all gets down to this:
We have Genesis explaining the creation.

So they needed to fabricate their own version. Something from nothing it it’s just natural atoms would be communicating about it on a message board because that’s what matter does. It matters!

 

[Flash]

It all gets down to this:
We have Genesis explaining the creation.

I believe God created the Heavens and the Earth. However, Genesis is nether a science or a history book. It is a book explaining the relationship between Man and God.

To me Intelligent Design is much more credible than this prosperous idea that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

 

[ChemEngineer]

As an Engineer that understands The Laws of Physics I have a hard time understanding how the universe created itself out of nothing and that all these hundreds of billions, if not trillions of galaxies were once condensed into the size of a head of a pin.



With all due respect I doubt you do either. I also suspect the professionals that do it for a living don't really know much more than you and I.

Those wunnerful "Laws of Physics" are not applicable before time, matter, and science were created. Obviously nothing cannot make everything under any circumstances, but that is what those "professionals" ask us to swallow.

Lord Kelvin was such a "professional" when he declared so authoritatively in 1895, "Heavier than air human flight is impossible."

Seven years later, two bicycle mechanics..... well you know...........

 

[toobfreak]

No one knows for sure how we got here.

A stork brought me.

 

[The Duke]

The Big Bang Theory has always been a place holder to explain the unexplainable. It is actually based on only two pieces of evidence. The cosmic background noise and the red shift that means the universe is expanding.

The Webb telescope is blowing a big hole in the theory. Those distant mature galaxies should not be there if the BBT happen.

"Science Bitch!!!!"

It's based on denying God. That's what it is.

 

[The Duke]

I believe God created the Heavens and the Earth. However, Genesis is nether a science or a history book. It is a book explaining the relationship between Man and God.

To me Intelligent Design is much more credible than this prosperous idea that the universe magically created itself out of nothing.

I believe you meant "preposterous".

 

[Flash]

Those wunnerful "Laws of Physics" are not applicable before time, matter, and science were created.

Scientists trying to explain the unexplainable will make comments like "Oh, the Laws of Physics just didn't apply". Really? Is that the best they can come up with?

Sorry but nobody has any credibility on this subject because nobody knows how the universe was created. This BBT is really nothing more than magic.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Scientists trying to explain the unexplainable will make comments like "Oh, the Laws of Physics just didn't apply". Really? Is that the best they can come up with?

Sorry but nobody has any credibility on this subject because nobody knows how the universe was created. This BBT is really nothing more than magic.

Magic surrounds you. Fluctuating quantized probability wavefunctions - they form the "magic" surface of anything you touch. They form the surface of every molecule inside you and out.
That is the precise, scientific definition of "electrons," truly magic.

The energy carried by electric current in wires is all outside the wires themselves, not inside them.
More "magic."

Atomic structure, 99.99999% empty space and yet solid and strong as steel - "magic."

My ways are not your ways and my thoughts are not your thoughts sayeth the Lord.

If "nobody has any credibility on this subject," as you claim, then get off your high scientific, pretentious horse.