The JWST Found Something You Wish It Hadn't

Neogaia777 · Nov 24, 2022

sjastro said:
This doesn't even make any sense.
What are we guys supposed "look into it" when you don't supply the information or this amazingly simple logic a child would understand.
I'm calling your bluff you don't have any counterarguments and the argument of incredulity fallacy is the motivating factor here.

See my post above yours just now.

I really don't see why I am wasting my time though, none of it is ever going to change anyway.

God Bless!

Neogaia777 · Nov 24, 2022

Neogaia777 said:
Ok, I guess I'm a bit bored right now, and have a couple of minutes on my hands, etc, so let's just try one simple logic experiment, shall we...

Currently the observable universe is 92-93 billion light years large, right...?

Well, current data/projections say that the entire thing, if there is even a limit to the entire thing, is at least 200 times larger than that, correct...? So let's just use that lower number/estimate for right now shall we...?

200 times 92 is... 18 trillion 400 billion light years large, correct...? So, tell me how that all got there from one single origin point, or only one single BB, when it is only supposed to be 13.8 billion years old, or only happened just only 13.8 billion years ago, etc...?

It had to expand very, very rapidly, like almost beyond belief rapidly, to be from just one single origin point (single singularity) in that amount of time, and then nearly halted all of the suddenly, like fictional Star Wars aircraft coming out of hyperspace, for that to all be true and correct and for that to happen that way, etc, there is not enough time for gradual deceleration either, the time is just too small, and the universe too large, etc...

It's a very clear logic contradiction, as we know the universe did not do that, (either one of those things) and especially since it is still supposed to be speeding up in that expansion or acceleration still supposedly, etc...

The numbers and the data (and the pictures), etc, do not match, and as of right now, there is absolutely no evidence at all for the BB, age of the universe maybe, "maybe", but not the BB, etc...

If it as only as old as they say it is, but is also the size they say it must be (and we are using the "lower number estimates", etc) then it could not have all started out as a single singularity, or from one single origin point, etc, but would have to have started already laid or spread out already, etc, if it is only as old as the current orthodoxy insists that it is, etc, because it just cannot be otherwise, not unless it is much, much, much (and did I say "much"), anyway, much, much older than they currently say it is, because only then, can any kind of BB, even be remotely possible at this point, etc...

I need to do more research as to just exactly what point in time the BB was first suggested/thought of, and what amount of data they had at that time, but I can absolutely guarantee you that they thought the universe was a lot smaller at that time, and it is outdated now due to how large we now know it at least has to be at least now, etc...

And at risk of starting to repeat myself all over again now, I'm going to stop there for now, ok...

This is not all I know or have to say about it (the universe) either, etc, but there is "more", etc...

Problem is a lot of them call for a drastic change in thinking, and maybe even complete desolution of some current models, etc...

God Bless!

Ironically, how they had to come up with the "at least 200 times larger theory", is because they have absolutely no evidence of a single center origin point, ironically, etc, which is admitting they currently have no evidence of or for that really, etc...

Then the likely size of it causes problems for the only 13.8 billion years old theory, if there was that BB that they have absolutely no evidence of or for, ironically, etc...

For the age to be correct, which it could be, then it would have had to already been laid out already, and the universe started that way, but that is the only way, etc...

And if the age is a lot, lot older, then there could have been a BB "maybe", but that is the only way, etc... But currently, there is absolutely no evidence for a BB, etc...

I can also tell you a few of my theories about the supposed accelerating expansion around us/out from us, as the center, as well, but I doubt you want to hear about that, etc...

God Bless!

sjastro · Nov 25, 2022

Neogaia777 said:
Ok, I guess I'm a bit bored right now, and have a couple of minutes on my hands, etc, so let's just try one simple logic experiment, shall we...

Currently the observable universe is 92-93 billion light years large, right...?

Well, current data/projections say that the entire thing, if there is even a limit to the entire thing, is at least 200 times larger than that, correct...? So let's just use that lower number/estimate for right now shall we...?

200 times 92 is... 18 trillion 400 billion light years large, correct...? So, tell me how that all got there from one single origin point, or only one single BB, when it is only supposed to be 13.8 billion years old, or only happened just only 13.8 billion years ago, etc...?

It had to expand very, very rapidly, like almost beyond belief rapidly, to be from just one single origin point (single singularity) in that amount of time, and then nearly halted all of the suddenly, like fictional Star Wars aircraft coming out of hyperspace, for that to all be true and correct and for that to happen that way, etc, there is not enough time for gradual deceleration either, the time is just too small, and the universe too large, etc...

It's a very clear logic contradiction, as we know the universe did not do that, (either one of those things) and especially since it is still supposed to be speeding up in that expansion or acceleration still supposedly, etc...

The numbers and the data (and the pictures), etc, do not match, and as of right now, there is absolutely no evidence at all for the BB, age of the universe maybe, "maybe", but not the BB, etc...

If it as only as old as they say it is, but is also the size they say it must be (and we are using the "lower number estimates", etc) then it could not have all started out as a single singularity, or from one single origin point, etc, but would have to have started already laid or spread out already, etc, if it is only as old as the current orthodoxy insists that it is, etc, because it just cannot be otherwise, not unless it is much, much, much (and did I say "much"), anyway, much, much older than they currently say it is, because only then, can any kind of BB, even be remotely possible at this point, etc...

I need to do more research as to just exactly what point in time the BB was first suggested/thought of, and what amount of data they had at that time, but I can absolutely guarantee you that they thought the universe was a lot smaller at that time, and it is outdated now due to how large we now know it at least has to be at least now, etc...

And at risk of starting to repeat myself all over again now, I'm going to stop there for now, ok...

This is not all I know or have to say about it (the universe) either, etc, but there is "more", etc...

Problem is a lot of them call for a drastic change in thinking, and maybe even complete desolution of some current models, etc...

God Bless!

Ironically, how they had to come up with the "at least 200 times larger theory", is because they have absolutely no evidence of a single center origin point, ironically, etc, which is admitting they currently have no evidence of or for that really, etc...

Then the likely size of it causes problems for the only 13.8 billion years old theory, if there was that BB that they have absolutely no evidence of or for, ironically, etc...

For the age to be correct, which it could be, then it would have had to already been laid out already, and the universe started that way, but that is the only way, etc...

And if the age is a lot, lot older, then there could have been a BB "maybe", but that is the only way, etc... But currently, there is absolutely no evidence for a BB, etc...

I can also tell you a few of my theories about the supposed accelerating expansion around us/out from us, as the center, as well, but I doubt you want to hear about that, etc...

God Bless!

In these two posts let me list the things you don’t understand.
I am going to try to make it as simple as possible for you without going into the mathematics and physics in any great detail as it will only confuse you.

(1) As has been explained to you on numerous occasions in the past there is no “center”.
Where is the center on the earth’s surface?
The center can be any arbitrary point on the surface, there is no “true” center.
On the surface of a balloon which is being inflated each point on the surface is moving way from every other point.
To extend this analogy to the BB model, the BB occurred everywhere in a very small volume not at a central location.
The BB did not occur at a singularity as quantum mechanics prevents this.

(2) When we refer to the expansion of the universe it is the expansion of the observable universe not the entire universe.
Therefore your calculations in your first post are rubbish; the universe hasn’t expanded from 0 to 18 trillion 400 billion light years.
A photon can only travel at the speed of light; in the time a photon has travelled 13.7 billion light years, the universe has expanded to a diameter of around 92 billion light years.
The calculation is not trivial as it requires to measure the curvature of the universe, Hubble’s constant and the density parameters for matter, radiation, dark energy and redshift all of which are obtained from the cosmic radiation background.

(3) The expansion of the universe is not limited to the speed of light, in fact in the very early universe expansion was many orders of magnitude greater so every point in the universe was causally connected to every other point which allowed the universe to cool down uniformly and be flat.

(4) You seem to think that the BB can be described like an explosion in space where galaxies are like shrapnel moving in space which should eventually slowdown.
Unless influenced by gravity galaxies are stationary in space-time and are being carried along by the space-time expansion like a surfer on a wave.
The conservation of energy doesn’t apply to objects being carried by space-time hence there is nothing contradictory about the expansion of the universe accelerating.
As mentioned previously the BB is not an explosion at some point in space-time it occurred everywhere.

(5) Your claim there is no evidence for the BB is willful ignorance.
While no one was around to see the BB the most obvious effect is the cosmic radiation background which cannot be explained by any other model including expansion models such as the steady state theory.

(6) Another piece of willful ignorance is to try to push this single center point nonsense to claim cosmologists are clueless with regards to the size of the entire universe.
In point (2) I mentioned the curvature of the universe can be calculated by utilizing the angular dimensions of structures in the cosmic radiation background.
This allows the total density parameter Ωₒ to be determined.
If Ωₒ = 1 the entire universe is infinitely large.
Currently the value is around Ωₒ = 1.0 ± 0.12 making it very large.

(7) Finally a general comment.
Your posts confirm the personal incredulity fallacy or the “I don’t understand it so it must be wrong" as you haven't offered any points which even makes sense.

The Barbarian · Nov 25, 2022

Neogaia777 said:
It had to expand very, very rapidly, like almost beyond belief rapidly, to be from just one single origin point (single singularity) in that amount of time, and then nearly halted all of the suddenly

It's still expanding. Otherwise, no red shift.

The Barbarian · Nov 25, 2022

sjastro said:
(1) As has been explained to you on numerous occasions in the past there is no “center”.
Where is the center on the earth’s surface?
The center can be any arbitrary point on the surface, there is no “true” center.
On the surface of a balloon which is being inflated each point on the surface is moving way from every other point.
To extend this analogy to the BB model, the BB occurred everywhere in a very small volume not at a central location.
The BB did not occur at a singularity as quantum mechanics prevents this.

Yes. This explains why the cosmic microwave background radiation is the same in any direction. As in your analogy of the Earth's surface, two-dimensional beings living on a surface that was on a three-dimensional sphere, would have difficulty visualizing the inflation of that sphere to its present size.

Estrid · Nov 25, 2022

rockytopva said:
There was no Big Bang…

As if

Halbhh · Nov 25, 2022

rockytopva said:
There was no Big Bang…

If you don't believe there was a 'big bang' -- the sudden beginning of this Universe, blooming forth even faster than the speed of light at the beginning it's thought in the mainstream theory... -- then not believing in that sudden creation of the universe, from nothing...

Then what do you believe instead? Is it that you believe the Universe always existed then and thus Genesis chapter 1 is mistaken? (this idea of an always existing Universe I've typically only heard from atheists)

Also, just informational, and far less important: the 'big bang' is just a name someone made up to recognize it appears this Universe suddenly began from nothing and expanded very rapidly in vastly less time than 1 second into a significant size.

(e.g.: How large was the universe after 1 second?

When the Universe was one second old, it was too hot to form stable nuclei; protons and neutrons were in a sea of hot plasma. Also, the entire observable Universe [1 second old] would have a radius that, if we drew it around the Sun today, would enclose [..] the seven nearest star systems, with the farthest being Ross 154. -- How Big Was The Universe At The Moment Of Its Creation?)

rockytopva · Nov 25, 2022

Gee... Everyone... Is the James Webb Space Telescope going to change all our perspectives on the universe???

Halbhh · Nov 25, 2022

rockytopva said:
Gee... Everyone... Is the James Webb Space Telescope going to change all our perspectives on the universe???

Yes! If it did not, that would have been pretty surprising at this point. It seems like every significant upgrade in a telescope leads to surprising new discoveries, so that now I've come to expect surprises each time a major new telescope leap arrives.

Just a very useful thing to know, the old phrase 'big bang' only is about how the Universe seems to have suddenly appeared from nothing, expanding rapidly (and we think was also somewhat like an explosion in 1 way -- not an explosion, it's unalike in several ways, but instead it was somewhat like one in that it was a rapid expansion) --

English astronomer Fred Hoyle is credited with coining the term "Big Bang" during a talk for a March 1949 BBC Radio broadcast,[42] saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past."

Estrid · Nov 25, 2022

rockytopva said:
Gee... Everyone... Is the James Webb Space Telescope going to change all our perspectives on the universe???

Tweak it some here and there, more likely

Hans Blaster · Nov 25, 2022

rockytopva said:
Gee... Everyone... Is the James Webb Space Telescope going to change all our perspectives on the universe???

That might have been a good tagline when the NGST was early in its development, but as far as the structure of the Universe intervening discoveries have already reshaped our view: Dark matter, near perfectly flat universe, structure formation, precise age.

There are many things it will tell us about the early formation of galaxies and massive black holes, but its not going to "disprove" the big bang no matter how much cranks like Lerner think it might, because those "alternative" were all incompatible with *pre*-JWST data.

There certainly will be a lot of lovely illustrations of things in the distant universe that were only "artists impressions" or extracted from simulations.

A lot of details will be clarified.

To be clear, the exact timing and nature of the earliest galaxies is a bit uncertain. JWST will certainly help with that. JWST hasn't even gotten to its "deep field" observations yet.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Nov 25, 2022

AV1611VET said:
Did I hear her say -- at 14:11 -- it describes how the universe has EVOLVED?

For those of you who have argued against me so strenuously that cosmic evolution is a farce -- despite the fact that I showed that picture from Harvard -- Dr Becky says otherwise.

'cosmic evolution is a farce'? Really?

Neogaia777 · Nov 25, 2022

sjastro said:
In these two posts let me list the things you don’t understand.
I am going to try to make it as simple as possible for you without going into the mathematics and physics in any great detail as it will only confuse you.

(1) As has been explained to you on numerous occasions in the past there is no “center”.
Where is the center on the earth’s surface?
The center can be any arbitrary point on the surface, there is no “true” center.
On the surface of a balloon which is being inflated each point on the surface is moving way from every other point.
To extend this analogy to the BB model, the BB occurred everywhere in a very small volume not at a central location.
The BB did not occur at a singularity as quantum mechanics prevents this.

(2) When we refer to the expansion of the universe it is the expansion of the observable universe not the entire universe.
Therefore your calculations in your first post are rubbish; the universe hasn’t expanded from 0 to 18 trillion 400 billion light years.
A photon can only travel at the speed of light; in the time a photon has travelled 13.7 billion light years, the universe has expanded to a diameter of around 92 billion light years.
The calculation is not trivial as it requires to measure the curvature of the universe, Hubble’s constant and the density parameters for matter, radiation, dark energy and redshift all of which are obtained from the cosmic radiation background.

(3) The expansion of the universe is not limited to the speed of light, in fact in the very early universe expansion was many orders of magnitude greater so every point in the universe was causally connected to every other point which allowed the universe to cool down uniformly and be flat.

(4) You seem to think that the BB can be described like an explosion in space where galaxies are like shrapnel moving in space which should eventually slowdown.
Unless influenced by gravity galaxies are stationary in space-time and are being carried along by the space-time expansion like a surfer on a wave.
The conservation of energy doesn’t apply to objects being carried by space-time hence there is nothing contradictory about the expansion of the universe accelerating.
As mentioned previously the BB is not an explosion at some point in space-time it occurred everywhere.

(5) Your claim there is no evidence for the BB is willful ignorance.
While no one was around to see the BB the most obvious effect is the cosmic radiation background which cannot be explained by any other model including expansion models such as the steady state theory.

(6) Another piece of willful ignorance is to try to push this single center point nonsense to claim cosmologists are clueless with regards to the size of the entire universe.
In point (2) I mentioned the curvature of the universe can be calculated by utilizing the angular dimensions of structures in the cosmic radiation background.
This allows the total density parameter Ωₒ to be determined.
If Ωₒ = 1 the entire universe is infinitely large.
Currently the value is around Ωₒ = 1.0 ± 0.12 making it very large.

(7) Finally a general comment.
Your posts confirm the personal incredulity fallacy or the “I don’t understand it so it must be wrong" as you haven't offered any points which even makes sense.

I appreciate the info, really I do, but are you saying the universe did not start out as a single singularity approximately 13.7 billion years ago...?

Hans Blaster · Nov 25, 2022

Neogaia777 said:
I appreciate the info, really I do, but are you saying the universe did not start out as a single singularity approximately 13.7 billion years ago...?

Not necessarily. The physics describing the Big Bang (GR) breaks down at extremely high density when quantum effects should be operative. Those classical equations of cosmology do have a singularity in them, but what that really tells us is that the equations have failed and we need more. In an infinite universe (if it is infinite) the "singularity" would still be infinite in space and then it would get bigger.

What we can say is that...

The whole Universe was in a hot dense state...

and then it expanded. Point singularities are not needed.

Neogaia777 · Nov 25, 2022

Hans Blaster said:
Not necessarily. The physics describing the Big Bang (GR) breaks down at extremely high density when quantum effects should be operative. Those classical equations of cosmology do have a singularity in them, but what that really tells us is that the equations have failed and we need more. In an infinite universe (if it is infinite) the "singularity" would still be infinite in space and then it would get bigger.

What we can say is that...

The whole Universe was in a hot dense state...

and then it expanded. Point singularities are not needed.

Could it have been in a hot dense state starting out everywhere, without the need for it to have expanded, very, very fast at first, from a certain "somewhere"...?

Hans Blaster · Nov 25, 2022

Neogaia777 said:
Could it have been in a hot dense state starting out everywhere, without the need for it to have expanded, very, very fast at first, from a certain "somewhere"...?

If it hadn't expanded it would still be hot and dense, instead of not-so-hot and not-so-dense.

It didn't expands from a "somewhere", but rather from everywhere. ("Everywhere" may be limited in spatial extent, or infinite. That is not yet clear and may never be clear.)

Neogaia777 · Nov 25, 2022

Hans Blaster said:
If it hadn't expanded it would still be hot and dense, instead of not-so-hot and not-so-dense.

It didn't expands from a "somewhere", but rather from everywhere. ("Everywhere" may be limited in spatial extent, or infinite. That is not yet clear and may never be clear.)

Could it not have just started out very hot and dense, and just cooled down, as it slowed down, because that is just what the universe is doing/has been doing since it started...?

Neogaia777 · Nov 25, 2022

Neogaia777 said:
Could it not have just started out very hot and dense, and just cooled down, because that is just what the universe is doing/has been doing since it started...?

Because I have a loose theory that the universe has always been growing, and moving, but not necessarily expanding, etc...?

And that there is/always was a counter-force, or counter-balance, to it's always moving, and growing, and changing, and expanding, etc...

AV1611VET · Nov 25, 2022

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
'cosmic evolution is a farce'? Really?

QV please: My Cosmic Evolution Challenge

(Note Post 13 in that thread.)

Hans Blaster · Nov 25, 2022

Neogaia777 said:
Could it not have just started out very hot and dense, and just cooled down, as it slowed down, because that is just what the universe is doing/has been doing since it started...?

It has cooled as it expanded, but the expansion rate is not slowing down, but speeding up.

The JWST Found Something You Wish It Hadn't

Old Soul

Old Soul

Newbie

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Everything You say is Life to me

Love to pray! :)

Everything You say is Life to me

Well-Known Member

Rocket surgeon

Well-Known Member

Old Soul

Rocket surgeon

Old Soul

Rocket surgeon

Old Soul

Old Soul

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Rocket surgeon

Similar threads