The JWST Found Something You Wish It Hadn't
- Thread starter rockytopva
- Start date
Meh. The big bang theory is the theory of how the universe has evolved from the hot dense state at the earliest times we can model, not the origins of the universe (much like evolution & abiogenesis). There's no alarm among cosmologists and nothing the JWST has discovered disproves or throws doubt on the big bang. JWST seems to show that our model for the development of the earliest galaxies needs revision.
Here's what Dr. Kirkpatrick says about the JWST discoveries: "JWST: Revealing the Secrets of an Invisible Universe” and a radio interview.
Here's astrophysicist Dr Becky explaining why JWST HASN'T "disproved Big Bang theory".
Finally: The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Rocket surgeon
- Mar 11, 2017
- 14,882
- 11,874
- 54
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
It takes 8 minutes to get to the point and it give me Eric Lerner. Thumbs down.
Upvote
0
Yeah ... certainly doesn't bother to elaborate on Lerner's misinterpreted observation data issues and his particular application of Tolman SB, which were pointed out to him a couple of years back. One might hope that he would've taken all that onboard and focused on coming back with some kind of reasonable counter arguments, rather than jumping onto the JWST galaxy formation hype wagon-train(?)
Upvote
0
He should change his name from Lerner to Learner by deed poll as he has a lot to learn about BB cosmology.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,044
- 51,495
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
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.
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 23,290
- 5,242
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Science now, just like religion, has now developed an "orthodoxy" now that is now no longer open to even hearing about any kind of changes or newer ideas to any of their long held ideas or theories, etc.
I already figured out what JWST is just now discovering just using logic with what we have now from or as opposed to when the BB was first developed/thought of/conceived or was created and a current picture of the known and observable universe, but I will beat a dead horse no longer, as the current orthodoxy has already proven to me they will never ever be ever open to ever even hearing it ever at all anyway, etc.
God Bless!
Upvote
0
Hans Blaster
Rocket surgeon
- Mar 11, 2017
- 14,882
- 11,874
- 54
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
While I agree that being like religion is bad, that's not what this is.
There was some "hype" about these discoveries a couple months ago when they were new and the hype was just a misunderstanding (or misuse) of the new JWST data. As always, what is scientific is supported by evidence or it isn't scientific.
Not even sure what this is supposed to mean.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
The scientism argument which incidentally is against forum rules.
If science is a religion then what is the purpose of the JWST mission?
Religions are not subject to testing as they are based on faith which is unquestionable.
One of the JWST objectives is to observe the evolution and number of galaxies formed during the reionization era and is a test for the predictions made in the BB model for this particular era in the universes’ evolution.
It maybe that parts of the BB model may require revision based on the observations but it doesn't disprove the model as JWST can only probe as far back as the reionization era.
What exactly have you figured out?
If it is based on the video in the OP then I’m afraid you have been deceived as it is a gross misrepresentation.
Eric Lerner is behind this and is peddling his own Plasma cosmology model.
The Dr Becky video in the @FrumiousBandersnatch post refers to it as “Tosh” the following video uses more colorful language.
Plasma cosmology is a failed model as described in this thread.
You don't replace a theory which is largely successful but incomplete with a plasma cosmology model which is riddled with problems.
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 23,290
- 5,242
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
@sjastro
Either the universe is a lot, lot older than they say it is, and then there may or may not have been a BB (it would have to be very, very, very, very old, etc) (a lot, lot older than they say it is, etc) or if it is as old as they say it is, then it could not have began with a BB, etc...
It's simple logic if your honest, but maybe you are just way, way too orthodox now to be truly 100% completely objective now anymore, for even a child's logic can clearly see it, etc...
Don't worry though, I really don't expect the scientific orthodoxy to ever change it's views on any of it/that now, no matter how simple and basic it is, etc...
P.S. I didn't watch the video, because I didn't have to...
God Bless!
Either the universe is a lot, lot older than they say it is, and then there may or may not have been a BB (it would have to be very, very, very, very old, etc) (a lot, lot older than they say it is, etc) or if it is as old as they say it is, then it could not have began with a BB, etc...
It's simple logic if your honest, but maybe you are just way, way too orthodox now to be truly 100% completely objective now anymore, for even a child's logic can clearly see it, etc...
Don't worry though, I really don't expect the scientific orthodoxy to ever change it's views on any of it/that now, no matter how simple and basic it is, etc...
P.S. I didn't watch the video, because I didn't have to...
God Bless!
Upvote
0
If its so ridiculously simple then why don't you explain the logic behind it, otherwise this post can only be noted for its insulting tone.
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 23,290
- 5,242
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
I have put it out there already, and since I don't expect the current orthodoxy to change it's mind, or alter it's ideas, I do not see the point in trying to explain it again.
God Bless!
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Hans Blaster
Rocket surgeon
- Mar 11, 2017
- 14,882
- 11,874
- 54
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
Why would we think the universe is much older than previously determined (13.7 Gyr)? Can you provide evidence of that? Is it to be "found" in this JWST data?
Simple logic is insufficient. What you need to understand the universe is physics. Some isn't even that complex.
Again, you have no basis for this claim. Orthodoxy ("right thought") is for religions, not sciences.
Upvote
0
Very poor form.
You expect me and others to sift through your posting history to find your "logic" in action when you can easily provide links to your relevant posts.
Since you are not going to do this I can recall you have a limited understanding of the physics so this is based on the principle "I don't understand it so it must be wrong".
Sorry that's not logic so simple a child would understand, it's not logical at all.
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 23,290
- 5,242
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
Shall I get you a picture book, or maybe quote you a few very simple, but very large numbers maybe...?
Anyway, you can truly tell how much I really truly care to update either yours, or the current scientific orthodoxies current ideas on this can't you...
I know, why don't you guys look into it maybe, while I read a book or something, ok...
God Bless!
Upvote
0
- Oct 10, 2011
- 23,290
- 5,242
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Celibate
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!
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!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
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.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
