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

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.
jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

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

Unread post by jackokie » Wed Sep 21, 2022 8:17 pm

Aw, shucks, @BAC, I just love a good dust-up.

About Illingworth's interview, one part stood out:
Then, within weeks, there was another one even further back in time, closer to the Big Bang, that was still very massive. That has really been a surprise. We have to ask ourselves: is it really massive? Or does it have really unusual stars in it that are very bright, but not so much mass? We just don't know at this point, but Webb can answer these questions.
I will give Illingworth the benefit of the doubt here because it takes a while to come to terms with things that undermine your belief system. But notice that one thing is missing from his alternatives: "Or maybe our theory is wrong".

The link below is to an article about the social context of research. It focuses on Plate Tectonics / Continental Drift, but I believe it's particularly relevant to the "cosmological crisis" we're experiencing.
A first general idea I would like to acknowledge as regards the use of the “style of thought” concept is that there are different ways of reasoning that may coexist in space or time. Underlying the diversity of styles of thought is the general idea that in science and knowledge there are several patterns of thinking.

The second powerful idea to be used in relation to the “style of thought” concept is that the acceptance or rejection of a scientific theory can only be understood within a broader cultural context which defines what is acceptable or not. Indeed, each style of thought possesses its own frame of validity, that is to say, its own tools to define what kind of theories are acceptable.

A third element to be emphasized is that a style of thought exists only as long as it is linked to a particular social group. To understand the existence of a style of thought is to analyse the social institutions behind it. This is particularly important since it helps to explain changes that may occur in the dominant thoughts of a society. The replacement of one way of knowing for another is not to be understood in terms of some specific truths that emerge, since they only take place within a certain style of thought. Rather, it ought to be seen in relation to the changes in the social actors who carry and reproduce that style of thought.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-9439-7
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

Harry
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:29 pm

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

Unread post by Harry » Thu Sep 22, 2022 11:53 pm

I do not know how the Big Bang Theory become a main theory to the workings of the universe.

For 50 years i have been called all types of names.
Deleted from forums

Bu! When you know what you know nothing can stop you.

Without evidence , only a list of ideas that scientists with little understanding .
The power of the MOB can make something look real

jacmac
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

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

Unread post by jacmac » Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:39 am

from jackokie:
About Illingworth's interview, one part stood out:

Then, within weeks, there was another one even further back in time, closer to the Big Bang, that was still very massive. That has really been a surprise. We have to ask ourselves: is it really massive? Or does it have really unusual stars in it that are very bright, but not so much mass? We just don't know at this point, but Webb can answer these questions.
The Hubble ultra deep field image was made with multiple exposures over several months.
The James Webb image was captured in one day.
Perhaps we might see multiple James Webb images added together in like manner eventually.

jacmac
Posts: 890
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:36 pm

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

Unread post by jacmac » Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:48 am

From Harry:
"I do not know how the Big Bang Theory become a main theory to the workings of the universe.

For 50 years i have been called all types of names.
Deleted from forums

Bu! When you know what you know nothing can stop you."

EXACTLY !
if you believe the Big Bang I have a bridge in Brooklyn New York I will sell to you,
CHEAP.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Fri Sep 23, 2022 4:27 am

jacmac wrote: Fri Sep 23, 2022 2:39 am The Hubble ultra deep field image was made with multiple exposures over several months.
The James Webb image was captured in one day.
Perhaps we might see multiple James Webb images added together in like manner eventually.
Good point. Hopefully sooner rather than never, given the importance of this one issue.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sat Sep 24, 2022 3:09 am

Here’s Lerner’s third video …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_P9lFctj0

Here’s the key comment ... from Lerner ...
@LPPFusion
5 days ago
We are alternating the technical with non-technical aspects of the debate. Right now we're preparing for a presentation in London right after the debate. Then we'll have another more technical video that makes use of the most recent data and shows an even more direct contradiction with the Big Bang hypothesis. But that will be after a short vacation, so coming in about a month. We also expect the debate and presentation will be available online, but don't know when. Stay tuned!

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:08 am

I see ussanews.com is trying to do it’s part to sweep Big Bang inconsistencies under the rug. They've given PHILOSOPHER Stephen Meyer, who I discussed earlier (https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/phpBB3 ... =45#p7752 ), more opportunity to attack Lerner and defend Big Bang. Here ...

https://ussanews.com/2022/09/22/heres-w ... -big-bang/
Here’s Why James Webb Telescope Discoveries Are Causing Scientists To Rethink Galaxy Formation (But Not The Big Bang)
Let's see if his shtick is still the same?
If the JWST were to detect “uber” red shifted radiation coming from extremely ancient, distant galaxies, that would provide additional confirmation that the universe has expanded as much as the Big Bang theory predicts.

So has the JWST detected such radiation? It has. In fact, there would be no extremely distant galaxies to analyze had the JWST not detected long wavelength infrared radiation coming from them. Remember the JWST was specifically designed to detect such infrared radiation. Thus, the fact that it has been able to produce images of extremely distant galaxies shows that it has collected the kind of radiation astronomers would expect if the universe is expanding as the Big Bang theory affirms.
Yep. Still talking about "uber redshifted" (at least it's not "super uber redshifted") light.
Lerner mentions none of this.
That's not true at all. So Meyer i's still lying, too.
Instead, he highlights surprising discoveries about how many galaxies had formed in those remote periods in cosmic history. He argues that, given current theory, we should not expect to see so many galaxies so early.

Perhaps. But the evidence he cites challenges models of galaxy formation, not an expanding universe or the Big Bang.
WRONG ... because the Big Bang model INCLUDES galaxy evolution and he has indeed presented JWST observations that challenge the expanding universe and the Big Bang.
Interestingly, Lerner acknowledges that the JWST has detected extremely red-shifted radiation. But he explains this away with something called the “tired-light hypothesis.”
LIE. He didn't mention tired light in his article.
Yet the tired-light hypothesis has been discredited.
WRONG, for all the reasons I pointed out earlier that Meyer appears to just ignore.
What’s more, the scientist that Lerner quoted to prove “panic” among astronomers has disclaimed use of her quote, noting that JWST data is making her rethink galaxy formation, not the Big Bang.
Actually, she said JWST results were making her wonder if "everything I’ve ever done is wrong." Mpw she's claims to be an expert in black holes, which are a central feature used to explain just about every observation in the Big Bang Universe. If she is concerned that everything she ever thought about them is wrong, then that potentially threatens the Big Bang model. Multiple mainstream sources state that “the Big Bang Theory is a cosmological model used to describe the beginning AND THE EVOLUTION of our universe.” So if Allison was worried about the early evolution of the universe, she was worried about the Big Bang.

Wonder if the mainstream now has Meyer on retainer ... like a lawyer ... to defend their interests ($$$$$$$$).

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

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

Unread post by jackokie » Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:30 pm

I used the contact form of Evolution News (of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture) to provide the URL of your latest fisking of Stephen Meyer and to suggest that microbiology was a much better avenue to pursue Intelligent Design than the Big Bang. (I also suggested that their faith might be a little shaky if it required the distortions of Meyer's article). I don't expect anything to come of it, but my default mode this year seems to be "pushback".
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sun Oct 02, 2022 8:16 pm

While waiting for Lerner's next video in the "debate", here are three videos he put out about a month ago ...

"Panic and Censorship in Cosmology: JWST and the Fusion Energy Connection, Part 1"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKdsJcRsULM

"Panic and Censorship in Cosmology: JWST and the Fusion Energy Connection, Part 2"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUv4vceKuIg

"Panic and Censorship in Cosmology: JWST and the Fusion Energy Connection, Part 3"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KTAVzOTsQc

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Fri Oct 07, 2022 8:17 am

Here is a set of six videos that Lerner put out several years ago that I think are really good. I especially liked the last four since I find the structure of the universe the most convincing argument for plasma cosmology. In my opinion, these videos should be required viewing in all universities and high schools claiming to teach astrophysics. Of course, the Big Bangers in control of educational institutions will NEVER allow that.

Part 1 - “The Real Crisis in Cosmology - The Big Bang Never Happened”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KkhRibBllU

Part 2 - “The Real Crisis in Cosmology - The Galactic Origin of Light Elements”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9W7WownRmo

Part 3 - “The Real Crisis in Cosmology - The Universe is Too Old for a Big Bang”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t1tHAM8BYE

Part 4 - “The Real Crisis in Cosmology - Dark Matter Doesn’t Exist”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2HIU1QB24k

Especially liked the argument regarding Dynamic Viscosity.

Part 5 - "The Real Crisis in Cosmology - Cosmic Evolution with No Big Bang"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajr5LSv9MSg

SUPER video. The most shocking thing is that this description of how ALL the structures in the universe formed was already available IN THE 1980s, which means that astrophysics has wasting time and money on gnomes ever since then. In my view, it’s criminal. It’s FRAUD on the grandest scale imaginable and someone should pay for that fraud with their reputations if nothing else.

Part 6 - "The Real Crisis in Cosmology - Getting It Right with No Big Bang"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dHqC6B-DWs

Another FANTASTIC video. Alfven and Lerner’s model hangs together, whereas the mainstreams model does NOT. Which is why observations continue to surprise them. These videos made things much clear to me regarding the completeness of the plasma cosmology model. Despite what the mainstream astrophysicists and *science communicators* claim ... it is complete and self consistent, as you can see.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Fri Oct 07, 2022 4:37 pm

Ooooops!

There were 3 more videos in the Real Crisis in Cosmology series

Part 7 - “The Real Crisis in Cosmology - Increasing Energy Flow Density—Key to Cosmic Evolution”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WlOjJfnyR8

Part 8 - “Big Bang Wrong Again: Why Dark Matter Mystery Matters"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMPygowNeWo

Part 9 - “The Real Crisis In Cosmology - CMB, Failed Predictions of Big Bang Continued"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxHZ_FAXjs4

The only negative comment I have is in the last video Lerner strayed into politics.

And history is now proving him wrong.

But I hope Dr Lerner will now add a new video to this series ... one concerning the JWST results.

Perhaps titled "JWST, More Bad News For Big Bang"

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Tue Oct 11, 2022 4:04 am

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.04812.pdf
The JWST High Redshift Observations and Primordial Non-Gaussianity

Matteo Biagetti,1, 2, 3, 4 Gabriele Franciolini,5, 6 and Antonio Riotto7, 8

I. INTRODUCTION

The standard cosmological model, based on the idea that the energy budget of the universe is currently dominated by a tiny cosmological constant Λ plus Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM), predicts that the initial seeds for galaxy formation are halos with relatively low masses of the order of 106M⊙.

The initial James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) imaging via the Cosmic Evolution Early Release Science (CEERS) survey has recently reported a population of surprisingly massive galaxy candidates at redshift z >∼ 8 with stellar masses of the order of 109M⊙. Even though a spectroscopic follow-up will be necessary to confirm the observation based on photometry only, the early formation of massive galaxies reported by the JWST is hardly reconcilable with the standard ΛCDM expectations, which would require an implausible high star formation efficiency (SFE), even larger than the cosmic baryon mass budget in collapsed structures.

… snip …

Recently, based on 14 galaxy candidates with masses in the range ∼ 109 ÷ 1011 M⊙ at 7 < z < 11 identified in the JWST CEERS program, Ref. [7] derived the cumulative stellar mass density at z = 8 and 10 for M⋆ 􏰍 1010 M⊙. They found at z ≃ 10
ρ (> 1010M ) ≃ 1.3+1.1 · 106M Mpc−3, ∗ ⊙ −0.6 ⊙

ρ (> 1010.5M ) ≃ 9+11 · 105M Mpc−3.

These values are larger than the ΛCDM predictions by a factor ∼ 50, even allowing maximum efficiency ε = 1, or invoking extreme value statistics.
Oh oh!
While several extensions of the ΛCDM scenario have been already put forward in the recent literature [9–11], they all appeal to new ingredients in the late time evolution of the universe.
In other words, the mainstream is invoking new GNOMES to explain the JWST results. Such as this one …
The goal of this paper is to discuss a possible solution which invokes a change in the initial conditions of the cosmological perturbations giving rise to the DM halos, that is, non-Gaussianity (NG). Indeed, a possible source of NG could be primordial in origin, being specific to a particular mechanism for the generation of the cosmological perturbations.

… snip …

IV. CONCLUSIONS

In this paper we have investigated whether changing the initial conditions of the cosmological perturbations by adding some amount of NG helps in boosting the formation of massive and bright galaxies, as recently reported by JWST.

We tested our modelling of the NG correction of the halo mass function adopting N-body simulations and check whether NG scenarios compatible with current large-scale and low redshift observations may help explaining recent data. Our findings indicate that a large and strongly scale dependent NG (which switches on at small scales) is needed to alleviate the tension between the cosmological model and the observations.
And apparently even it has problems.

Cargo
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

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

Unread post by Cargo » Tue Oct 11, 2022 5:09 am

HAHAH, for Dark Matter to be Real, the values are off by a Factor of FIFTY/50
HAHAHHAHA
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Tue Oct 11, 2022 5:21 pm

Cargo wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 5:09 am for Dark Matter to be Real, the values are off by a Factor of FIFTY/50
Noticed that? :o

“Primordial Non-Gaussianity” (that’s a mouthful!) is apparently a big thing in the astrophysics community. They’ve been studying it for many decades. Here’s a paper on it from 2019 that had 178 (!) authors: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.04409.pdf . Reading the paper, I do have to wonder what its 178 authors (you’re paying their salaries, by the way) dream about at night? Elephants on parade?

In any case, the abstract of the paper states that “one key ingredient that underlies cosmological observables” is that the universe was initially Gaussian “with high precision.” But “most inflationary models produce far higher levels of 'Non-Gaussianity' (call it NG) than observed" and apparently that is one of the reasons there is growing doubt about inflation.

The paper goes on to say that “primordial non-Gaussianities are now very tightly constrained by the CMB.” That might be a problem although the authors, all being Big Bang Believers, offer several avenues of hope (note that all involve gnomes). And it’s likely to be quite expensive (for the taxpayer) hope, I suspect, to pursue those gnomes.

So here we are now with the JWST observations also conflicting with the standard model and to rectify that (according to the other paper) they also need more NG than has been observed. So now we not only have missing missing mass, and missing dark matter, but we have missing primordial NG as well. What a quandary.

BeAChooser
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:24 am

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sat Oct 22, 2022 4:44 am

Just so you know, the *Science Communicators* are still waging their war on Eric Lerner. Here’s the latest by “Neil English” …

https://salvomag.com/post/big-bang-denial-lives
Scientist Holding onto Eternal Universe Model Has a High Evidential Hurdle to Clear
He calls Eric’s article on the JWST results “clickbait”. That tells you all you need to know about his truthfulness. Of course the author just regurgitates the same arguments the other Big Bang supporting *communicators* did. And the author is just as dishonest in presenting the JWST results.

For example, he states “the surprising finding that galaxies in the early universe are more plentiful, and a little more massive and structured than expected, doesn’t mean that the Big Bang model is wrong. It just means that some of the details of the theory require a little bit of tweaking”.

“More plentiful”? I’d say 10 times more plentiful is more than just “more plentiful”. And it’s a lie to say they’re “a little” more massive and structured than expected. It’s also a lie to say the BB theory is going to require “a bit of tweaking”. It’s going to require a LOT of tweaking … and probably the addition of still more gnomes.

It’s also a lie to write “It’s particularly telling that Lerner has completely ignored the impressive body of evidence in favor of the Big Bang model of cosmogenesis”. Lerner hasn’t done that at all. I suspect Neil is another *communicator* what was too lazy to go read or look at Lerner's many published articles and videos on that?

Now here’s the really funny part. AT the end of his article, Neil assures us that “The evidence consistently supports the proposition that the Cosmos had a beginning, just as the writer of Genesis 1:1 told us thousands of years ago.”

LOL! Now you know where he’s coming from … belief in another … well let’s be honest … gnome. In fact, here’s #1 on Neil English’s list (https://neilenglish.net/ten-things-true ... mise-over/ ) of things that “true Christians” should “never compromise” over “in these Last Days” … “Defending the Doctrine of Creation”. And in addition to a Big Bang beginning, he’s believes the Last Days are nearly upon us. Big Bang sure has created some strange bedfellows.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest