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

[jackokie]

@nick c @BeAChooser Thank you nick for the link to David Talbott's article about the persecution of Anthony Perrat; I had no idea it had been that bad. The really sad part is that this was an assault on all of us - on the Enlightenment, on civilization, on science itself. And whoever did it got away with it. And shame on his co-workers for not standing up with him. I assert that our current problems - the Replication Crisis, the magical thinking being encouraged about gender, the enforced orthodoxy in science - are the result of people kicking the can down the road rather than dealing with the BS before it became entrenched. That's why I engage in my Quixotic quest to use the internet comment threads to highlight EU/Plasma Cosmology and unscientific "Science". It is a fantasy that one can go through life cost-free. Since a cost is going to have to be paid sooner or later, why not choose the cost that achieves something?

I suppose Talbott had good reasons not to name the "inquisitor", but I certainly would like to know who it was.

[jackokie]

I see where Dr. Lerner has started a new video series titled "JWST and The Big Bang Never Happened Debate 1".

Here is the first video in the series. It is a measured rebuttal to the responses his IAI article provoked. He discusses the size, smoothness, and age of the galaxies revealed by the JWST, and how they refute Big Bang theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=360aZiIWdjQ

[BeAChooser]

I see where Dr. Lerner has started a new video series titled "JWST and The Big Bang Never Happened Debate 1".

Here is the first video in the series. It is a measured rebuttal to the responses his IAI article provoked. He discusses the size, smoothness, and age of the galaxies revealed by the JWST, and how they refute Big Bang theory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=360aZiIWdjQ

Thanks for posting this. I note that Lerner talks about this being a “debate”. We'll have to see if that's true. A debate will require the other side respond to what Lerner actually says, not toss out more adhominems, make up stuff out of thin air, and ignore or misrepresent what Lerner says, like they did in response to his article. Lerner, of course recognizes this, since he says his opponents "haven’t started replying to [his] actual scientific points yet.” And that's absolutely true as I've proven in this thread.

You have to admire Lerner. It's smart to now challenge his critics to take on just one of his scientific points ... the one he says is most important. It leaves them no room to wiggle out of responding or talk about something else. Plus, it does seem to be the core scientific issue in his paper. His video is a very well constructed and understandable step by step analysis whose logic seemingly demolishes the Big Bang hypothesis using math and JWST data.

It will be very interesting to see if even those critics he mentions by name respond. I suspect they won't, if they have a choice. So what we should do is repost this video to all his critics in a public way and request their comment in a manner they can't refuse without looking bad. Unforunately, I don't tweet, which would probably be the best way to do this, since it was tweets from the public that raised their concern enough to respond to the article.

[BeAChooser]

I missed Dr Brian Keating's first response to Lerner in my review of various *science communicators* who attacked Lerner’s article titled “The Big Bang Didn’t Happen”. So since Lerner mentioned him by name in his rebuttal video, maybe I should take a moment to comment on what he JUST said.

Turns out that about a day ago, he and a fellow communicator, professor Garret Lewis, put out an hour long podcast titled: "Errors in the Big Bang Never Happened." Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPna7WUODuo . He was clearly motivated to do this podcast because he alluded to the “panic” that Lerner suggested exists in his field. He says that Lerner sent him an email asking him to look at his most recent video (presumably the one linked by Jackokie where Lerner challenged him and others to address one specific issue). He said since Lerner's video "claims to refute some of the claims that I made, that Dr Becky made, Dr Becky Smethurst, Anton Petrov made, Michael Siegel made", he's "compiled a list of those individuals and their criticism of Mr Lerner and his Big Bang Never Happened hypothesis.” In other words, he not confining his remarks to Lerner's challenge.

The podcast opens with Lewis seemingly complaining that Lerner hasn’t obeyed the “process” that he and his colleagues think should be followed to overturn the existing Big Bang paradigm. Then, Keating implies that Lerner might just but saying what he’s saying to promote his fusion work.

Keating then proceeds to put up a slide he says is about the “classical motivations for the Big Bang”, after stating that he’s not engaging in a “debate” with Lerner. He says he didn’t invite Lerner on his channel because(?) Lerner didn’t invite him on his channel. (Mind you, Lerner doesn’t have a podcast show). Keating says he's going to reply with a powerpoint presentation since Lerner replied with a powerpoint presentation this criticism of him.

His first slide is from Ethan Siegel, who I’ve noted is a very slick mainstream propagandist. Now we’ve all seen and heard the case that Big Bang proponents make ... probably a thousand times. Dr Keating makes it again, but then he has an hour long podcast to fill to keep all his “subscribers” happy. But rather than talk about the chart on the screen, he Instead mentions that Peebles, calling him an“eminent Nobel Laurette and all around wonderful individual”) recently said “an empirical cosmology, which is what we’re trying to do here, there should be a goal not to explain every single observation, but instead to explain the most number of things with the fewest number of input assumptions” in a book title “Anomalies In Cosmology”. Then he says Lerner is wrong to claim no one is taking the anomalies serious. I just find Peebles' quote hilarious, coming from the mouth of a supporter of a cosmology that has been divorced from empirical for some time and whose theory is laden with all sorts of assumptions supporters gloss over.

Keating then quotes Peebles saying “an anomaly might prove to give us a better appreciation of the predictions of the theory we already have.” Maybe, but all of this is nothing but obfuscation. Lerner issued ONE very specific challenge in his video to try and move the debate forward and bring some clarity and we are now 10 minutes into Keating’s pod cast and he hasn’t even begun to address the questions that learner asked.

He then quotes Peebles asking “What is the value of criticism?”, then says “being obstinate, ignoring evidence to the contrary, practicing confirmation bias”, etc, is not a useful or expected process to get to the quote unquote truth.” What he’s doing is subtly trying to suggest that Lerner is doing all those things. Yet earlier in the video this guy made a point of saying he doesn’t like adhominens. Right.

Then it’s on to more obfuscation.with Keating mentioning Lewis' “checklist” for Big Bang alternatives and giving him the floor to discuss that. Keating snidely remarks that it will be a “teachable moment for people like Mr Lerner”. How condescending can he be? Garrett then discusses his list of things that a Big Bang challenger must do and explain, acting as if Lerner has never even touched on any of the topics in his writing and videos.

But that’s completely untrue. Lerner has over the years addressed every one, many times … CMB, the Lyman alpha forest, Albert’s paradox, Redshift, the elemental composition of the UNIVERSITY, etc etc etc. The most ironic item on the list is # ... one is apparently supposed to have a “precisely formulated” theory before criticizing Big Bang. It's a Catch 22, given that the mainstream has been deliberately starving alternative theories of funding and debate for decades and decades. Item #2 also mentions “prediction” which is ironic given that Lerner’s video was a challenge regarding the ability of Big Bang to predict what JWST found, while showing that he (and an associate) had predicted what JWST found.

Buy the time Lewis finishes presenting his list, they’ve wasted another 3 minutes without responding to Lerner’s SINGLE, narrowly focus challenge. Next, Keating says “people” (not him, because he’s above it, right?) have accused Lerner of “cherry picking, where you take a flaw … a foible, if you will … in previously accepted theory or thought … then you assail that as being completely dispositive towards the conjecture in which everything else is built upon.” To that I would respond that if Lerner can show that the universe is not expanding … and that’s the point of the video challenge he issued … then labeling it cherry picking doesn’t change the fact that it would indeed be completely dispositive of the Big Bang. It would settle this debate once and for all and put all the Big Bang communicators, like him, out of business.

Then it on to more obfuscations (for example, talking for minutes about the origin of the moon). I find this all rather tiresome and by now some of his viewers probably left and will only remember the title of his podcast, “Errors in the Big Bang Never Happened”. Maybe that’s what he intended?

Anyway, it’s 19 minutes into his podcast before he finally shows the first page from Lerner’s response video presentation. But rather than immediately address the specific question(s) Lerner asked about Toleman Test, he spends minutes taking umbrage at Lerner for suggesting that the JWST results contained some “not necessarily pleasant” surprises. It’s more of the same word games rather than substance that characterized the previously discussed criticisms of Lerner's written article.

Keating also declares that Lerner “has been making the exact same arguments since 1991, since his book by the same name, “the Big Bang Never Happened", and that was thoroughly debunked, if you will, by Professor Ned Wright [blah blah blah about Wright’s credentials]’. That’s a matter of opinion. That was another instance where Lerner TRIED to engage in debate with his critics and failed. Sure, Wright wrote a webpage/article that all the Big Bangers now cite as definitive on the issue and Lerner. What they don’t mention is that Lerner rebutted Wright’s criticisms in his own article/webpage, which then Wright and the Big Bang Communicators seem to have ignored. So they ended up past one another with no real resolution.

Note that Keating also says Wright addressed the Toleman Test, “which HOPEFULLY we’ll get to in minute.” It surprising that Keating would even contemplate not getting to that, since that was the heart of the challenge Lerner issued. But, right after that, 24 minutes into their podcast, they do get to it. Mr Lewis starts by telling the audience that we don’t really know how far away the galaxies that JWST images show are yet. He says the distances were only inferred based on their color, not their redshift. And since the sizes of the galaxies are determined from their angular size and redshift, “we just have to be very careful with just the raw images we have, about working out exactly what the size of these objects are.”

But then he admits that “we do know that for a lot of the objects we see, if the expanding model is right and these objects are in the redshift range that we’re inferring, they were relatively small and relatively bright” and claims that is what they (the Big Bangers) expected for decades. But the truth is that if the objects are in the redshift range now inferred, it’s a huge understatement to just call them “relatively” small and bright. As Lerner’s article showed, they’d have to be EXTREMELY small and bright .. and that was not expected.

He then assures the viewer that those small galaxies will get bigger and bigger, just like Big Bang theorists said. By way of explanation, he says “we know” the rate of star formation hasn’t been the same over the 14 billion years. The universe “was much more vigorous when it was younger, driven by the mergers that”, almost chocking on it, “Eric was against …sort of.”

Sorry, but Lerner is not “sort of” against the mergers that Big Bangers postulated were going on in the early universe. He says the smoothness and lack of chaos in the JWST images … which the JWST scientists have apparently admitted is the case … hence their surprise … means the scenario postulated by Lewis wouldn’t happen. Lewis is simply ignored this and is regurgitating a BELIEF that the galaxies would “grow and grow” from their “relatively” small beginnings. This is not at all convincing even if Keating is nodding his head in agreement.

Then over over for many more minutes, they go after Lerner for simplifications he made in his analysis, even though they don’t do the analysis themselves to show his conclusions are wrong. They mock Lerner for his formula that sets redshift (Z) equal to the ratio of the distance of a galaxy now and the distance the galaxy was when the light seen now was emitted. They say it’s “unprofessional” and smirk. But they don’t actually say it’s wrong for the purposes to which it was used by Lerner. They attack him for using 1 arsec = 3 light years in his analysis with a highly convoluted criticism, when the fact 1 parsec does equal about 3 light years for most purposes. They seem to be trying to make mountains out of every single molehill rather than do the calculations themselves, their way, and show that Lerner's conclusions are wrong.

And it goes on and on. Even I didn't want to spend a whole hour plus listening. Clearly, this response is not going to satisfy Big Bang detractors. They may make some good points here and there, but they do seem to ignore or handwave away a lot of the concerns that Lerner and the rest of us express. That's odd, since to entirely discredit Lerner all they really needed to do, if their case is strong, was provide a direct, clear answer to his questions in his latest video. They didn’t really do that. Instead they spent by far most of the times defending themselves from things Lerner didn’t even ask, misrepresenting what Lerner believes, attacking him for making claims that they claim were already debunked (which is at the very least debatable), making snide remarks about Lerner, going off on strange tangents, and smugly congratulating themselves or their Big Bang associates.

Anyway, rather than say more and get stuck on the weeds, I think I'll just wait to see how Lerner responds this this.

[jackokie]

Thank you, @BeAChooser, for doing the dirty work so we don't have to. The JWST seems to have enabled that challenge to the BB we've hoped for. I like your proposal of posting links to Lerner's videos on the BB defenders' sites.

[BeAChooser]

Thank you, @BeAChooser, for doing the dirty work so we don't have to.

Remember, I didn't actually listen to the last 25 minutes or so of their presentation. Just quickly scrolled through the images to see if they presented any other charts that would indicate they did calculations to prove Lerner's numbers in his presentation were wrong. I didn't see any. Maybe tomorrow I'll find the time to watch the rest to make sure. Mostly, I'm just hoping that Lerner can weed through the hour and identify those portions that had to do with his challenge and respond to that. Perhaps making that difficult is part to the reason Brian and Garett did what they did? Certainly it was enough obfuscation and misdirection to confuse most of the public and all they have to do is keep the public confused to keep the Big Bang theory dominant.

[Michael Mozina]

https://astrobites.org/2022/09/03/jwst- ... -galaxies/

For any real skeptic of Big bunk theory, it's not surprising that the JWST images are "surprising" astronomers by showing that galaxy evolution theory is complete bullshit. It turns that *contrary to the LCDM model*, galaxy disk fractions appear to be constant for as far back in time as JWST images can see. In other words, the concept of galaxy evolution over time is utterly falsified by the actual data sets.

In any other industry, such a significant failure of the model would case the model itself to be questioned and abandoned but in astromathology today, nope. Instead they're willing to acknowledge that their model has zero predictive value, and they just constantly postdict new fits when their models fail and they fail over and over again.

It's like watching clueless teenagers bragging about how smart they are when they clearly don't have a clue what they're talking about.

There really aren't a lot of ways to "falsify" the big bang theory, but galaxy evolution over time is one of it's core tenets since it was first proposed. Early "smaller" galaxy were supposed to be ill formed "blobs" that slowly merged with more small blobs and formed "larger and more mature' galaxies over time. Instead they see 'mature and massive" spiral galaxies at the highest redshifts and little if any evidence to support galaxy evolution over time. There's literally *nothing* that the big bang model *correctly* predicts about the distant universe.

Now if of course you *assume* that the universe is infinite and eternal and redshift is simply a 'tired light' phenomenon, the JWST images are perfectly congruent with that belief. No need to invent any 'dark magic' phenomenon, or evoke of any dark magic of any sort

[BeAChooser]

There really aren't a lot of ways to "falsify" the big bang theory, but galaxy evolution over time is one of it's core tenets since it was first proposed. Early "smaller" galaxy were supposed to be ill formed "blobs" that slowly merged with more small blobs and formed "larger and more mature' galaxies over time. Instead they see 'mature and massive" spiral galaxies at the highest redshifts and little if any evidence to support galaxy evolution over time.

Absolutely right. Here’s a peer reviewed paper (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1978M ... W/abstract) by Simon White and Martin Rees (both very big names in astrophysics) which proposed that in 1978. And here’s the growth a spiral according to one of modern astrophysics cosmic simulations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O674AZ_UKZk&t=43s just 3 years ago. The galaxy starts out as a blob less than 2 kpc across about 500 million years after the Big Bang. Slowly, steadily it grows into spiral spanning 30 kpc some 12 billion years after the Big Bang. And it only become a defined spiral some 12 kpc across after 3 to 4 billion years has elapsed. So seeing full sized, fully developed spirals in the first 500 billion years is totally counter to what they predicted.

[jackokie]

I've just reviewed the comments on Brian Keating's first two videos about Dr. Lerner's IAI article. There has been a surprising (to me, at least) amount of pushback on the tone of Brian's podcasts, and the lack of actual rebuttal. Keating apparently tried to discount Lerner's article because he has a vested interest in LLP Fusion; a commenter pointed out the hypocrisy in that Keating has a vested interest in the revenue derived from his BB videos. Dr. Lerner actually went on the comment thread of Brian's video from four days ago and made several responses to Brian's attempts to wave away Lerner's points. I expected some disarray among the standard model crew, but the arrogance and condescension, as well as out-and-out disinformation (a popular word these days, but in this case quite appropriate), are breathtaking. If Keating is any measure, they are not taking the JWST results well.

[BeAChooser]

Hi folks. I’ve been away a few days but I see the *science communicators* are still at it … attacking Lerner with their special mixture of dishonesty and stupidity. Take Keith Cooper, for instance, whose article has been picked up by MSN.com. He writes …

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/th ... r-AA11yO79

The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) has not disproved the Big Bang, despite an article about a pseudoscientific theory that went viral in August, and which mischaracterized quotes from an astrophysicist to create a false narrative that the Big Bang didn't happen.

Ok, so his gloves come off from the get go. There's no pretense about trying to keep his response civil. Let’s skip the fluff and get to the gruff.

First, Mr Cooper quotes Allison Kirkpatrick telling Space.com that JWST found that the early galaxies “were more massive than we thought they would be” and “have a lot of structure” when “we didn’t think galaxies were this week organized so early in the universe.” He then tells the reader that “Cosmology’s standard model describes how the first galaxies were formed through a hierarchical process, involving small clouds of gas and clusters of stars coming together to form larger nascent galaxies. That these early galaxies seem a little more evolved than expected in JWST’s observations is an intriguing astrophysical puzzle that confounds current models of galaxy growth.” Well, so far I see nothing that disputes what Lerner observed. I see Cooper just trying to minimize what JWST found.

Next Cooper quotes Kirkpatrick about lying awake at night, wondering if everything she ever did is wrong, then says that quote was misused. To explain how, he quotes Kirkpatrick defending the quote, saying “I meant what I said — that everything I had learned about the first galaxies used on previous telescopic data probably wasn’t the complete picture, and now we have more data so we can refine our theories.” I don’t know about you, but to me that just sounds like after the fact handwaving on her part to explain away what she said. And note that Kirkpatrick forgets the part about everything she DID being wrong, when what she did was study black holes, not early galaxies. Her first response to being misquoted was to make a big deal about black holes being what she studies. Now she seems to have forgotten that.

Cooper claims that the quote was taken out of context but that’s absolutely false. Kirkpatrick gave Nature no context that was different than what Lerner used. She didn’t qualify it in any way in the Nature article, and if she did qualify it to Nature, then the fault of no context lies with Nature, not Lerner. To me, this just makes Cooper look like a weasel, who next calls Lerner a “serial denier” who ‘“[prefers] his personal pseudoscientific alternative.” That being the case, let me amend that. Cooper is worse than a weasel.

Cooper continues … describing … essentially … how THIN SKINNED Kirkpatrick must be … and how it shook her up to have “distant acquaintances” start “questioning her sanity”. And she must be quite helpless since she wasn’t apparently capable of responding to those people on her own. She needed *science communicators* to defend her. Truth is, I think THIN SKINNED may define all of those who’ve attacked Lerner for pointing out the obvious about the JWST results and quoting an *astrophysicist* who certainly appeared to have told Nature the results made her question EVERYTHING she EVER did.

Cooper continues his dishonest attack on Lerner by citing a “philosopher of science” (not a PhD in science … a real PHILOSOPHER, folks … ), Lee McIntyre, who wrote a book “How to Talk to a Science Denier” in 2021. He’s a darling of the mainstream media, being used to attack the opponents of their propaganda right and left. What Cooper doesn’t mention to his readers is that McIntyre wrote the book to attack in particular, Climate Deniers. He even lumps them right next to Flat Earthers, which tells you lot about McIntyre’s own inability to understand science, facts or logic. By the way, I’d be happy to debate McIntyre on the Climate topic any day of the week to show him how little he understands that science or logic.

Now McIntyre is also a big defender of everything the government did with regards to Covid-19 … no matter how unscientific. And he also indicated recently (https://twitter.com/LeeCMcIntyre/status ... 6WiLIrAAAA ) that he believes “Fascism is where the MAGA Republicans are taking us.” Be your own judge about whether you want this guy telling you what good science and logic is, folks, but in my opinion, he doesn’t understand science at all. He’s just making money by supporting the establishment, NO MATTER HOW WRONG OR MISGUIDED IT IS.

But Cooper believes McIntyre’s tripe and therefore dishonestly suggests Lerner is peddling an “anti-science narrative” by first trying to connect Lerner to flat-Earthers. There’s a major logical fallacy in him trying to do that but he’s too ignorant to see it. Then, rather than an offer his own analysis of why Lerner’s thesis is pseudoscience, he offers up McIntyre’s. He quotes the *philosopher* saying “the tactics employed in Lerner’s article are classic misdirections used by science deniers.” “For example,” McIntyre says, “Lerner uses logical fallacies, such as implying that in the Big Bang model more distant galaxies should look larger because in an expanding universe their light should have left when they were closer to us. This premise makes absolutely no sense - these were the farthest galaxies when their light left them, and they’re still the farthest galaxies now, so they shouldn't appear any bigger with distance.”

But that is the response of someone who doesn’t understand the logic/science of what Lerner said and who was too lazy to even do a minimal search on the internet to check his own logic. Had he done that, even just looking at this wikipedia website (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter_distance ), he would have read that “in the ΛCDM model … snip … objects at redshifts greater than about 1.5 appear larger on the sky with increasing redshift.” He would have found numerous sources agreeing with that.

Even Ethan Siegel published an article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 72cee1cb5f ) answering the question “Do Ancient Galaxies Get Magnified By The Expanding Universe?” He wrote that in “a Universe filled with dark energy (that is, the Big Bang model), “the farther away you look, the same-sized object looks smaller and smaller, but only to a point. Beyond that point, that object will actually start to look bigger again.” And then he states just what Wikipedia article states, that beyond a redshift of about 1.5, ‘the same-sized object will actually take up larger angular sizes.’

So Lerner is right, McIntyre is spouting junk, and Cooper hasn’t a clue. And that’s true with regards to plasma cosmology and astrophysics, as well as Covid-19 and Climate Change, where McIntyre regurgitates the party line of the establishment who wishes to control us. He says we’re victims of a lie when in fact he is the victim of lies, demonstrably so. Over and over. This latest article, which believe it or not Space.com also published, is ABSOLUTELY PATHETIC. It offer no data or facts AT ALL to challenge Lerner … just adhominen attacks and smears of the worst kind. Lerner should sue this joker and any media that publish his article for libel. If their lies scare off even one investor, Lerner could suffer millions of dollars in damages. So sue them for several million dollars, at the very least.

[BeAChooser]

Oh … by the way, Keith Cooper is (https://21stcenturyseti.com/about/ ) the editor and lead writer of Astronomy Now magazine, with degrees in physics and astrophysics. You would think he’d have been in a position to know McIntyre was wrong about the one instance where he actually attacked Lerner with something besides totally vague smears. Seems he was too rapped up in defending the mainstream to do that. Makes one wonder what sort of rag Astronomy Now is, doesn’t it?

[BeAChooser]

Here's the email I sent Space.com regarding Cooper's attack on Lerner which they published ...

Keith Cooper, Lee McIntyre (who Cooper quotes in his article), and the editors of Space.com owe Dr Eric Lerner a profound apology. If one isn't offered, Dr Lerner should sue all of you for publishing such libelous tripe. I've rarely seen such a baseless, ad hominem filled article in a media outlet that purports to promote good science. It would be laughable, if the consequences weren’t so potentially serious.

Know this ... the article doesn’t provide ANY valid factual or logical basis for dismissing Lerner’s concerns about JWST and Big Bang. NONE. The portion on Allison Kirkpatrick, who by the way has been used in this way in every article by *science communicators* attacking Lerner, is a rather silly defense of a scientist who ... to be frank ... appears to be overly thin skinned. The truth is that Lerner merely quoted her saying what she did in fact say and if there was a lack of context (Cooper's attack on Lerner) in what he said regarding the quote, that’s the fault of Nature, which quoted her without context in its article.

To explain how Lerner "misused" her quote, Cooper quotes Kirkpatrick saying “I meant what I said". Then she offers some after the fact handwaving ... "everything I had learned about the first galaxies used on previous telescopic data probably wasn’t the complete picture, and now we have more data so we can refine our theories." Sorry, but that doesn't show Lerner misused her quote. In fact, it supports how he used it.

And which theories is she talking about now anyway, since her initial response to hearing about his quoting her was to whine that she just studies black holes, not cosmology. So have the JWST results upended what she thought she knew about black holes? That would be serious since black holes are used in any number of ways to prop up the Big Bang model. She and YOU seem to have forgotten that.

Besides his defense of Kirkpatrick, the ONLY thing Cooper offers to *prove* that Dr Lerner is wrong to question Big Bang is the example that Cooper borrows from McIntyre, who has apparently never encountered an establishment position on *science* that he hasn’t supported. To give McIntyre credibility, he cites his book on science deniers. In the 2021 book, McIntyre attacks “climate deniers” (who, by the way, have clearly been vindicated by facts and events the last 3 decades) and those who (it turns out correctly) questioned the efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, masking and shutdowns. And just so you know, I'm happy to discuss the validity of those last two claims any day of the week with Space.com, Cooper or philosopher McIntyre.

Now in the subject article, Cooper, opens his McIntyre based attack by saying Lerner is peddling an “anti-science narrative” like that of "flat-Earthers". Linking those challenging mainstream Climate Change claims to "flat-Earthers" is something McIntyre did in his book, so Cooper isn't even being original about this. And there’s a major logical fallacy in this sort of argument. Both, ironically, can't see it.

Then, rather than an offer his own factual analysis of why Lerner’s thesis is pseudoscience, Cooper offers up McIntyre’s. He quotes the *philosopher* saying “the tactics employed in Lerner’s article are classic misdirections used by science deniers. ... snip ... For example, Lerner uses logical fallacies, such as implying that in the Big Bang model more distant galaxies should look larger because in an expanding universe their light should have left when they were closer to us. This premise makes absolutely no sense - these were the farthest galaxies when their light left them, and they’re still the farthest galaxies now, so they shouldn't appear any bigger with distance.”

I shouldn't have to tell YOU, at Space.com, or physicist/astronomer Cooper that is the response of someone who was simply too lazy to even do a minimal search on the internet to check his own logic. And it's ironic that he violated one of the 6 ways your own article by Cooper listed "to avoid falling victim to science deniers", namely "4. References — has the writer done their research and cited other credible research to support their results?" Had any of you just read this wikipedia website (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter_distance ), you would have discovered that “in the ΛCDM model … snip … objects at redshifts greater than about 1.5 appear larger on the sky with increasing redshift.” And that's true.

Even Ethan Siegel, another *science communicator*, who has attacked Lerner over his recent article doubting the Big Bang, published an article (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 37885bcb5f ) answering the question “Do Ancient Galaxies Get Magnified By The Expanding Universe?”

In it, he wrote that in “a Universe filled with dark energy (that is the Big Bang model), “the farther away you look, the same-sized object looks smaller and smaller, but only to a point. Beyond that point, that object will actually start to look bigger again.” And then he states just what the Wikipedia article states, that beyond a redshift of about 1.5, ‘the same-sized object will actually take up larger angular sizes.’

So, in the only case where Cooper tried to discredit Lerner with facts, rather than vague ad hominem smears, it turns out that Lerner is right and McIntyre was just spouting junk. The truth is that neither McIntyre or Cooper have a clue as to what constitutes science, much less pseudoscience. And that’s true with regards to plasma cosmology and astrophysics, as well as Covid-19 and Climate Change, where McIntyre regurgitates the party line of the establishment who wishes to control us.

Cooper says we’re victims of a lie when in fact he is the victim of lies, demonstrably so. Lerner should sue him and any media that publish his article for libel. If his lies scare off even one investor in Lerner quite valid commercial fusion effort, Lerner could sue them for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. My advice ... apologize ... publicly. And make it sincere.

[BeAChooser]

Yahoo has an article on the JWST results by astronomer Joe Burchett.

Note the following …

https://news.yahoo.com/space-telescope- ... 06457.html

Astronomers expected to see hundreds of baby galaxies in the very first pictures when JWST opened its infrared eyes, but they did not expect to see such big babies! Over the years, Hubble had shattered its own records again and again for seeing further and further into the past, taking censuses of galaxies much like those we take of the population every few years. The numbers and sizes of galaxies we’d counted seemed consistent with cosmology, our theory of how galaxies formed and the universe evolved.

After what JWST has seen, we are not so sure. The cosmological theory is astonishing, as it predicts a storyline from the Big Bang to the modern day with major characters such as dark matter and dark energy. Dark matter holds galaxies and groups of galaxies together while dark energy pulls space apart. How much of a starring role each of these characters plays over the course of history determines how many and how massive galaxies can form. [/b]With existing data, we have studied the contributions of dark matter and dark energy, and the story they tell seems to inconveniently leave out JWST’s big babies.[/b]

These newly discovered galaxies with the mass of 100 billion suns only 400 million years after the Big Bang (the universe is 13.7 billion years old) are so massive and there are so many of them that our current accepted cosmology says that there shouldn’t have been enough material around to form them. This has left theorists considering alternative cosmologies ... snip ...

I'd call that an indication of “panic". Enough that they're considering other cosmologies ... except for plasma cosmology. It appears that one is completely verboten. And at least Burchett didn't publicly attack Lerner. Just saying ...

[BeAChooser]

Well, well ... Allison Kirkpatrick has now stated on her twitter page (https://twitter.com/AkAstronomy/status ... WlhMErAAAA) that "I've done a lot of press recently, but I think this piece is my favorite (no shade at any of the other press!)" And the "piece" she picks above all others is Keith Cooper's "The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread." This only proves that she's a fool on top of everything else. Lerner should include her in the lawsuit since she chose to regurgitate an article that is demonstrably nothing more than an highly unscientific effort to defame, silence and injure him (economically).

[BeAChooser]

Here’s another supposed independent science website attacking Lerner (and citing/linking the Keith Cooper article):

https://universemagazine.com/en/james-w ... ng-theory/

1) They first attack his article because it was published by the Institute of Arts and Ideas, which they say is “not a recognized scientific institute in the world.” To that I say, so what, given that no organization Big Bangers "recognize" will publish ANYTHING questioning the Big Bang Gospel or that's supportive of plasma cosmology. This is a problem Lerner discussed in his article and a fact quite contrary to the way science is supposed to work.

2) They say Lerner has denied Big Bang since the 1980s, preferring his own “rather dubious ideas”. Again, I say, so what? Galileo fought the recognized establishment for years, preferring his own “rather dubious ideas”. In fact, most true scientific breakthroughs have come from people who fought the *accepted* mainstream ideas for years and years. Nobel Prize winning plasma cosmologist Hans Alfven's ideas come to mind.

3) They say Lerner took Kirkpatrick’s words out of context. This is an outright lie. GO READ THE NATURE ARTICLE: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02056-5. Here is the entirety of it concerning Kirkpatrick:

“With the resolution of James Webb, we are able to see that galaxies have disks way earlier than we thought they did,” says Allison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. That’s a problem, she says, because it contradicts earlier theories of galaxy evolution. “We’re going to have to figure that out.”

… snip …

Astronomers had thought that the process of chemical enrichment — in which stars fuse hydrogen and helium to form heavier elements — took a while, but the finding that it is under way in early galaxies “will make us rethink the speed at which star formation occurs”, Kirkpatrick says.

… snip …

With Webb just at the beginning of a planned 20-plus years of work, astronomers know they have a lot of changes ahead. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” Kirkpatrick says, “wondering if everything I’ve ever done is wrong.”

Here’s the entirety of what Lerner said regarding Kirkpatrick:

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.”

Nothing in that is out of context compared to the Nature quotes. Her extraordinary statement does indeed show a degree of panic after admitting that JWST results contradict Big Bang theories of galaxy evolution. Anyone might have interpreted it that way.

4) They state “Kirkpatrick explains that the galaxies in the young universe in the James Webb images actually look much more primitive than modern ones. And in this regard, they fully confirm the Big Bang theory. Her surprise is explained by the fact that they were expected to be even smaller and simpler.” But the statements by her in the Nature article and on her twitter page (which Lerner also linked) do not say that or anything close to it. If she said it anywhere, it wasn’t in anything Lerner cited or likely knew about as I have not found where she said that. So I think this too may be a lie by the unidentified author of the universemagazine.com article.

5) They state “James Webb‘s observations show already fully structured star systems, albeit small and primitive.” The small and primitive part is also false based on JWST result articles that Lerner cited and the unrebutted reasoning he gave in his article. Nothing they've said so far is true.

The article ends by suggesting Lerner is pushing nothing but “pseudoscience” (where have we heard that term before? ... Keith Cooper?). And then we learn that the article is according to www.space.com, so yes, Lerner should definitely sue space.com for their libelous attempt to injure him. He should also sue the owners of universemagazine because they’re doing the same thing, and ironically, they’re Ukrainian, hence definitely establishment supported. I suggest they use some of the billions of dollars they got from the US taxpayer to settle the lawsuit with Lerner. Just saying …