The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by BeAChooser » Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:34 am

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo ... r-AA17Q4tJ
When the first images from the James Webb Space Telescope were released last July, astronomers got their earliest look at cosmic history yet, seeing captured images of what the universe looks like billions of light years away. They expected to maybe see some "tiny, young, baby galaxies." What they found, however, was something far greater – six massive galaxies dating back about 13.1 billion years that appeared to be just as old as the Milky Way is now.

"These objects are way more massive than anyone expected," astronomer Joel Leja said. "...We've discovered galaxies as mature as our own in what was previously understood to be the dawn of the universe.

Those findings were published on Wednesday in the journal Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586- ... MSF0951a18). 

Ivo Labbé, the lead author of the study, said they started realizing they were onto something barely a week after the telescope images were released. 

"Little did I know that among the pictures is a small red dot that will shake up our understanding of how the first galaxies formed after the Big Bang," Labbé said. "...I run the analysis software on the little pinprick and it spits out two numbers: distance 13.1 billion light years, mass 100 billion stars, and I nearly spit out my coffee. We just discovered the impossible. Impossibly early, impossibly massive galaxies.

… snip …

That red dot was just the beginning. The next day, they found five more apparent galaxies. And the pictures taken by JWST show them as they were when our 13.8 billion-year-old universe was a mere 700 million years old. And if that's the case, they said, that would mean that the galaxies formed "as many stars as our present-day Milky Way. In record time." 

… snip …

"Regardless, the amount of mass we discovered means that the known mass in stars at this period of our universe is up to 100 times greater than we had previously thought," Leja said. "...The revelation that massive galaxy formation began extremely early in the history of the universe upends what many of us had thought was settled science. We've been informally calling these objects 'universe breakers' — and they have been living up to their name so far."

The objects, they said, are so big that scientists may have to alter cosmology models or force a total consensus revision of the belief that galaxies start out as little dust clouds and take a long time to become giant entities. 
Here’s what a Yahoo article says …

https://news.yahoo.com/james-webb-teles ... 34475.html
James Webb telescope captures ancient galaxies that theoretically shouldn't exist

… snip …

The scientists explained that they should not exist under current cosmological theory, because there shouldn't have been enough matter at the time for the galaxies to form as many stars as ours has.
Gee ... a dozen *science communicators* and numerous astrophysicists publicly derided Lerner for saying the same thing.

No doubt they’ll apologize now.

Who am I kidding. :roll:

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by BeAChooser » Sat Feb 04, 2023 11:08 pm

https://www.inverse.com/science/astrono ... osmic-dawn
ASTRONOMERS MAY BE ON THE CUSP OF A “POTENTIALLY REVOLUTIONARY” COSMOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH

These astronomers have the next 50 years all planned out.
These astronomers have a plan to keep themselves employed comfortably for a long, long time, don't they? And it's almost guaranteed that NOTHING they discover will be worth the expense. In fact, I suggest what they discover will not benefit the taxpayers who fund their work in any measurable way. It's just money down a ... well ... black hole.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by BeAChooser » Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:54 pm

Marioantonio wrote: Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:07 pm Okay? What does that have to do with anything? That is completely out of left field.
Well, both show a certain lack of common sense and scientific rigor.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by Marioantonio » Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:07 pm

Cargo wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:28 am
Marioantonio wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:20 pm
crawler wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm The universe is infinite & eternal.
People in the EU don’t like the term infinite.

Can we just say without beginning or end? Ageless?
We don't? Says who? ;p
It all depends on the context. ;]
Read Nick C’s comment above yours.
BeAChooser wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:21 pm He’s apparently also an AGWalarmist too.
Okay? What does that have to do with anything? That is completely out of left field.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by jacmac » Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:41 pm

Right.
If they see a sign that says: "go to jail directly, do not pass GO",
they MIGHT SAY their Big Bang theory is incorrect. :D

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by BeAChooser » Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:21 pm

They must still be worried that people aren’t buying their garbage any more …

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/no-big- ... 36285.html
No, the Big Bang theory is not 'broken.' Here's how we know.
And who is Paul Sutter, the author? Yet another astrophysicist turned *science communicator* whose livelihood depends on the mainstream memes. Indeed, his own bio (https://www.pmsutter.com) states “You can find Paul everywhere from the stage and screen to all forms of social media, and he is routinely brought in to speak to audiences around the world, including at the Boston Museum of Science, the Houston Museum of Science, the Griffith Observatory, the Frost Science Center in Miami, and more. He is available to speak about physics, astronomy, cosmology, space exploration, the intersection of science and art, and the relationship between science and society.”

He’s not only a believer in dark matter, dark energy, black holes and the Big Bang, he’s apparently also an AGWalarmist too.

Who would have guessed?

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by Cargo » Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:28 am

Marioantonio wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:20 pm
crawler wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm The universe is infinite & eternal.
People in the EU don’t like the term infinite.

Can we just say without beginning or end? Ageless?
We don't? Says who? ;p
It all depends on the context. ;]

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by nick c » Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:03 am

marioantonio wrote:People in the EU don’t like the term infinite.
And with good reason. The term "infinite" is not scientific. It is an abstract mathematical concept; that is, it is a term which has no application to reality. The reason that it is not scientific is that science is about making observations and measurements, used to falsify theories. Infinity cannot be observed and it cannot be measured.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by Marioantonio » Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:40 pm

crawler wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:02 pm
Marioantonio wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:20 pm
crawler wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm The universe is infinite & eternal.
People in the EU don’t like the term infinite.
Can we just say without beginning or end? Ageless?
Hmmm -- without beginning or end dimension wize -- ok (ie infinite)(ie infinite up n down n across)(ie in 3 dimensions).
And without beginning or end time wize -- ok (ie eternal)(eternal going back in time & eternal going forward in time).

One problem is that BBers might agree re infinite dimension wize -- koz i think that according to some BB theory if u travel in what u think is a straight line then u come back to where u started.

And another problem is that many of us don believe that there is such a thing as time -- time is an illusion (me)(Einstein)(others) -- hence the concept of eternal might be problematic.

Ageless. Hmmmm -- no, i dont agree -- i think that everything has an age, even if only an instant -- i think that ageless is a term used praps by theater critics etc not science.

You don’t believe in time but you believe in “age” for the universe? I distinctly remember a Thunderbolts video talking about the Universe being ageless, I can’t remember the exact one, could someone help, please? Maybe?

As for space, someone on these forums already talked about the universe being a closed space, a poincare sphere, like being in a mirrored cube, go to one side of the universe, you wind up on the other side.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by crawler » Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:02 pm

Marioantonio wrote: Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:20 pm
crawler wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm The universe is infinite & eternal.
People in the EU don’t like the term infinite.
Can we just say without beginning or end? Ageless?
Hmmm -- without beginning or end dimension wize -- ok (ie infinite)(ie infinite up n down n across)(ie in 3 dimensions).
And without beginning or end time wize -- ok (ie eternal)(eternal going back in time & eternal going forward in time).

One problem is that BBers might agree re infinite dimension wize -- koz i think that according to some BB theory if u travel in what u think is a straight line then u come back to where u started.

And another problem is that many of us don believe that there is such a thing as time -- time is an illusion (me)(Einstein)(others) -- hence the concept of eternal might be problematic.

Ageless. Hmmmm -- no, i dont agree -- i think that everything has an age, even if only an instant -- i think that ageless is a term used praps by theater critics etc not science.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by Marioantonio » Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:20 pm

crawler wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm The universe is infinite & eternal.
People in the EU don’t like the term infinite.

Can we just say without beginning or end? Ageless?

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by crawler » Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm

The universe is infinite & eternal.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by BeAChooser » Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:54 pm

Here’s another mainstream media science *communicator* keeping hope alive …

https://www.quantamagazine.org/standard ... -20230120/
Standard Model of Cosmology Survives a Telescope’s Surprising Finds

Reports that the James Webb Space Telescope killed the reigning cosmological model turn out to have been exaggerated.

By Rebecca Boyle

… snip …

The earliest of those confirmed galaxies shed its light 330 million years after the Big Bang, making it the new record-holder for the earliest known structure in the universe.
Sorry, Rebecca, but the lastest JWST results (https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... ?f=3&t=932) indicate the record holding galaxy is now just 200 million years after the Big Bang. Yes, it hasn’t been confirmed yet, but like the others I bet it will. Then what? Because the galaxy is already well developed suggesting, like one of the authors said, that “This tells us that we don't yet know when the earliest galaxy structures formed. We’re not yet seeing the very first galaxies with disks.” How early do galaxies have to form before you admit there’s a serious problem?
Astronomers began asking whether the profusion of early big things defies the current understanding of the cosmos. Some researchers and media outlets claimed that the telescope’s observations were breaking the standard model of cosmology — a well-tested set of equations called the lambda cold dark matter, or ΛCDM, model — thrillingly pointing to new cosmic ingredients or governing laws. It has since become clear, however, that the ΛCDM model is resilient. Instead of forcing researchers to rewrite the rules of cosmology, the JWST findings have astronomers rethinking how galaxies are made, especially in the cosmic beginning. The telescope has not yet broken cosmology, but that doesn’t mean the case of the too-early galaxies will turn out to be anything but epochal.
Notice how Rebecca doesn’t provide any detail about why that’s now “clear”? Instead she goes on to regurgitate the origin story the gnomers love so much … that “most of the material that flew apart after the Big Bang is made of something we can’t see, called dark matter.” What a shame they can’t find it! But somehow, dark matter (and dark energy) will be the glue that keeps ΛCDM alive.

I love this ridiculous claim …
One problem is that ΛCDM’s predictions aren’t always clear-cut. While dark matter and dark energy are simple, visible matter has complex interactions and behaviors, and nobody knows exactly what went down in the first years after the Big Bang; those frenetic early times must be approximated in computer simulations.
DM and DE are “simple”? LOL! Yes, visible matter does have complex interactions and behaviors, PRIMARILY because 99.99% of it (the plasma) is affected by electromagnetism and electric currents … something which the mainstream continues to generally ignore. Indeed, your article doesn't mention electromagnetism or electric current at all. And only mentions plasma as being around in the first million years or so. Q.E.D.
Brant Robertson, a JADES astronomer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, says the findings show that the early universe changed rapidly in its first billion years, with galaxies evolving 10 times quicker than they do today.
Well that's rather unexpected, isn't it? And how to explain that? MORE GNOMES?
One key assumption is that stars always form within a certain statistical range of masses, called the initial mass function (IMF). This IMF parameter is crucial for gleaning a galaxy’s mass from measurements of its brightness, because hot, blue, heavy stars produce more light, while the majority of a galaxy’s mass is typically locked up in cool, red, small stars.

But it’s possible that the IMF was different in the early universe. If so, JWST’s early galaxies might not be as heavy as their brightness suggests; they might be bright but light. This possibility causes headaches, because changing this basic input to the ΛCDM model could give you almost any answer you want. Lovell says some astronomers consider fiddling with the IMF “the domain of the wicked.”

… snip …

Over the course of the fall, many experts came to suspect that tweaks to the IMF and other factors could be enough to square the very ancient galaxies lighting upon JWST’s instruments with ΛCDM.
At least they admit that what they’re doing is *tweaking* their model. But like it was admitted above, turning all the knobs in the model (tweaking) can give you “almost any answer you want”. Is that science? These people seem like witch doctors … poking sticks at things they don’t understand (and never will as long as they continue to ignore electromagnetic effects on plasma) and calling on *spirits* to explain things.
In that case, she said, “what we learn is: How fast can [dark matter] halos collect the gas?”
Spirits like dark matter. What a shame they can’t prove it exists.

But still they use them ...
Somerville also studies the possibility that black holes interfered with the baby cosmos. Astronomers have noticed a few glowing supermassive black holes at a redshift of 6 or 7, about a billion years after the Big Bang. It is hard to conceive of how, by that time, stars could have formed, died and then collapsed into black holes that ate everything surrounding them and began spewing radiation.

But if there are black holes inside the putative early galaxies, that could explain why the galaxies seem so bright, even if they’re not actually very massive, Somerville said.
And that's called tweaking the model with a gnome. It’s necessary, because like that other black hole *expert*, Allison the Big Bang happened Kirkpatrick, said ... “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong”?

Next, Rebecca reports on the tweaking of the many computer simulations (basically, computer programs with lots of knobs they don’t really understand). Apparently, an astronomer named Benjamin Keller managed to make the simulations produce early galaxies like they were finding. So ΛCDM is safe. :roll:

Then as an aside Rebecca mentions that “the universe currently seems to be expanding faster than ΛCDM predicts for a 13.8-billion-year-old universe”. But she hand waves that away by saying “Cosmologists have plenty of possible explanations. Perhaps, some cosmologists speculate, the density of the dark energy that’s accelerating the expansion of the universe is not constant, as in ΛCDM, but changes over time.” In fact, she suggests that “Changing the expansion history of the universe might not only resolve the Hubble tension but also revise calculations of the age of the universe at a given redshift. JWST might be seeing an early galaxy as it appeared, say, 500 million years after the Big Bang rather than 300 million.” So ΛCDM is safe.

You see folks, it’s pretty obvious. ΛCDM is simply to big to be allowed to fail. Too many jobs and too many comfortable lives depend on it. So by hook or crook, these folks are going to come up with a way to save it. Even if they have to ignore the obvious and invent a few new gnomes. Even if they have to avoid honest debate with the plasma cosmology community ... Lerner's case being the latest example.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by BeAChooser » Sat Jan 14, 2023 4:07 am

Thanks. This is a key statement …
“We're not surprised to see disk galaxies,” Kartaltepe clarifies. “I think the surprise is to see so many of them. . . . We're really not seeing the earliest stages of galaxy formation yet.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen - Lerner's redux

by Cargo » Sat Jan 14, 2023 1:50 am


Top