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

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Thu Aug 18, 2022 1:44 am

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215
The Big Bang didn't happen

What do the James Webb images really show?

11th August 2022

By Eric J. Lerner

To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old.  Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s (https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09428) title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”

Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. 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.”
The article is much too long to be post here so I recommend everyone go read it because it proclaims exactly what some here said would happen once the JWST began to getting results. In particular, Lerner explains why images showing too many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old are incompatible with the Big Bang hypothesis.

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 » Thu Aug 18, 2022 3:12 am

I've been waiting for this a long time.
I have never believed in the Big Bang;
way before the idea of an electric or plasma universe came my way.
Lets watch how this plays out as
the standard model people scramble for new footing.
And we might help by holding their feet to the fire !
Jack

Cargo
Posts: 698
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

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

Unread post by Cargo » Thu Aug 18, 2022 4:10 am

How long as it been, decades probably, I've been saying that BB is pure Myth. Finally destroy it, and watch everything else coming tumbling down.
But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising
Why am I not shocked at their surprise, and looking at them like they are just fools. I disbelieved in their myth long ago. They will have no sympathy from me about sleepless nights of self-wrong anxiety.
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 » Thu Aug 18, 2022 6:01 pm

Michael Mozina long championed the idea that JWST would finally invalidate Big Bang. Not too long ago he wrote: "It will be interesting to see what ridiculous excuses they come up with to 'explain' all those "mature" distant galaxies they're going to find in the JWST deep field images. The whole concept of galaxy evolution over time has been shown to be false over and over again, yet they keep dreaming up ever more exotic 'excuses' to explain why their galaxy evolution model is a dismal failure." So if you're still around Michael, I'd love to hear your comments about the just published Eric Lerner paper linked above. :D

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 Aug 26, 2022 4:55 am

I think it's a shame that Lerner's latest paper has garnered so little interest here at Thunderbolts. That said, I'd like to point out that some mainstream scientists are now trying to rationalize away the JWST’s discovery of numerous, hard to explain (by Big Bang believers) galaxies that appear to have formed very soon after the supposed Big Bang. For example ….

https://www.space.com/james-webb-space- ... t-galaxies
James Webb Space Telescope catches 'imposter' galaxies red-handed

Dusty, star-forming galaxies that existed a billion years after the Big Bang could be masquerading as the record-breaking galaxies discovered by NASA's new space telescope that have been thought to date to even earlier times.
Ah yes, “could be”, the most popular phrase in modern astrophysics. Continuing ...
However, according to the two teams at least one of these galaxies, CEERS-DSFG-1, is an imposter.

Based on how red the galaxy appears to JWST, astronomers had determined a redshift of 17 to 18 for CEERS-DSFG-1, placing it just 220 million years after the Big Bang. Yet a team led by Jorge Zavala of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan used the NOEMA (Northern Extended Millimeter Array) submillimeter telescope in France to detect this distant galaxy and find that it contains huge amounts of dust.

Dust absorbs shorter, bluer wavelengths of starlight while allowing longer, redder wavelengths to pass, meaning that a dusty galaxy can mimic the redness of a higher redshift galaxy. Once this was taken into account, Zavala's team calculated a redshift of just 5 for CEERS-DSFG-1, placing it some 12.5 billion years ago, 1.3 billion years after the Big Bang. It's still old and far away, but not to any record-breaking length.
There are several BIG problems with this explanation.

First, many a Big Bang proponent has debunked the notion that other things than distance (like dust and tired light) can cause redshift. You can find them all over the internet saying that “dust does not cause redshift” … that it just reddens the light by preferentially absorbing/scattering blue light over red, and does not change the central wavelength of spectral lines. Thus the redshift doesn't change. For example, here (https://www.quora.com/Is-it-plausible-t ... us?share=1) is Silas Laycock, who claims a Ph.D in Astronomy from the University of Southhampton, saying “Dust cannot cause redshift, because while one effect of dust is to “redden” light passing through the dust (shorter wavelengths are scattered in accordance with Rayleigh’s law, leaving the longer wavelengths relatively unmolested), the process has NO effect on the wavelengths of individual spectral lines. Remember “redshift” means the shifting in wavelength of spectral lines.” So if the position of those lines doesn't change due to dust, how has this Zavala study come up with such radical reductions in z? And all of a sudden they’re going to go on record claiming just the opposite of what they previously claimed regarding what dust does? I smell desperation on the part of Zavala and his team.

Second, there's more bad news in the article …
According to astronomers' models, galaxies with so much dust and star formation could have existed 1.3 billion years after the Big Bang, but they are thought to have been relatively rare. 

"If we found a large number of these galaxies with JWST, the observations would start to be in tension with the models," Zavala told Space.com.
So, even assuming they’re right about dust altering z, they are still stuck. The images show far more undeformed galaxies at high z than their models predict, but if they claim they are really all just dusty galaxies at much lower Z, then they still violate what the models predict in terms of numbers at different Zs. Either they have too many galaxies at high z or too many at lower z. It's quite a pickle they find themselves in, eh?

But they have an out for that too … a “might be” … “It might just be that such galaxies are more common than previously thought.” And even so, they still have a problem because they have a VERY limited sample size suggesting dust in all the high Z galaxies they are finding. It seems premature to assume all of them can be explained away by the three galaxies they’ve studied so far (and note that the article indicates one of them had no dust and whether the third is dusty is being disputed by other scientists).

Next, the article states that another team of researchers, led by a Dr Rohan Naidu of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, also concluded some of the red galaxies are much closer than their raw redshift would suggest, but for a different reason. Ironically, they use the methodology of Halton Arp, who the mainstream did their utmost to discredit over the years, to justify it. Namely, they use the galaxy's location near other galaxies with known redshifts (just like Halton used the presence of quasars near low redshift galaxies to suggest they were low z objects too). To quote the article, “they found that the redshift 16.7 galaxy's near neighbors in the sky are all galaxies at about redshift 5, and together they form a very young proto-cluster that the redshift 16.7 galaxy is in the middle of. The inference is that the redshift 16.7 galaxy is part of this burgeoning galaxy cluster, rather than a very high redshift galaxy.” So now, I guess, they all want to be Halton Arps. ;)

Finally, at the very end of the article comes a major disclosure that they should have put at the very front of the article. “For the moment, nobody knows for sure the true redshifts of these objects. Everyone is now waiting for spectroscopic measurements of the redshifts — identifying how much individual lines in a galaxy's spectrum have been redshifted, rather than basing the redshift on the galaxy's color — for a conclusive determination one way or the other.” SO ... they didn’t use spectroscopic observations to arrive at their redshifts ... just handwaving.

And I recall article after article recently claiming that scientists “measured” the distance to galaxies in the JWST images and found very high Z red shifts. Specifically, the PHD student Callum Donnan mentioned in the space.com article as disagreeing with Zavala’s team’s claim that a Z = 16.7 galaxy is really just at Z=5, actually used spectrograph data from CEERS and JWST’s Near Infrared Spectrograph to come up with that redshift. Here’s his paper on that: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.12356.pdf . So again, it looks like Zavala is so desperate to make these high Z galaxies disappear because they pose such a problem for Big Bang that he's completely jumped the shark. Just saying ...

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

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

Unread post by BeAChooser » Sat Aug 27, 2022 4:55 pm

In his latest article, below, Ethan Siegel, astrophysicist and defender of the mainstream faith, tosses out yet another propaganda piece designed to bolster people’s belief in mainstream astrophysics … particularly the Big Bang … in order to keep the funding strong. He tries to counteract the article Lerner wrote about the JWST results … without actually addressing the specific points that Lerner made in his article (more on that in a moment). See for yourself. Here’s Siegel's article … https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang ... -big-bang/ "Ask Ethan: Has the JWST disproven the Big Bang?"

Now Siegel is so in tune with mainstream thinking that he argues Covid-19 did NOT come from Chinese labs (https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 5a19c65585 and https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... b93b084c4e, for instance … an assertion which is now generally thought to have been false).

He also is a huge proponent of the mainstream’s man-made Climate Change hysteria (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiege ... 983fb62333 and https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/t ... d37f1a1fdb and https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/s ... 877e7b6b7a, for instance ... an assertion so false it can be debunked with just two charts of data).

And he is a proponent of more and bigger colliders and fusion projects like ITER (https://www.realclearscience.com/2022/0 ... 41187.html and https://www.forbes.com/sites/ethansiege ... 85ce6d16ec, for instance). In fact, name a mainstream UNIPARTY position on *science* and he's there to support it. Yet when Trump argued for going back to the moon, he argued against it ( https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/s ... 02b9c875e3. By the way, we are just days away from doing it, so Trump was right and he was wrong.

In large part Siegel now makes his living off writing articles and producing videos for public consumption to defend mainstream thinking in each of the above cases … to keep the taxpayer funding going. His articles regularly appear in mainstream publications like Forbes Magazine. And, in fact, he calls himself a “science communicator” now, quoting his career in astrophysics to do that full time. And believe me, he’s very good at pumping out slick, lie filled propaganda for the masses. Which is why he's so dangerous.

Sooooo ... in his latest article, he writes that Eric Lerner’s claim that the Big Bang is now disproven is a “pure crackpot idea”. I suspect he wrote the article because he was beginning to get expressions of doubt from his fans, and that must be concerning. He writes, “they all inquire something akin to: ‘I read an article by LPPFusion, saying the new [JWST] pictures cast doubt on the Big Bang. It has something to do with redshift and the size and smoothness of galaxies, and it’s all due to plasma and proves their fusion theories.’" Then he waves his hand and says “Indeed, this is roughly the claim that’s been made,” and provides no further details on the precise arguments that Lerner made in his article. He doesn't list them or refute them. He just ignores them, which as we all know is the main tactic of modern astrophysicists these days.

Instead, Siegel begins rehashing (for about the hundredth time it seems) Big Bang Theory … with lots of “color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph” “explaining what each one [is], to be used as evidence against” EU non-believers. That takes up about half of his article. Then he notes some “Surprising finds from the JWST”, starting with the “biggest surprise”, that according to him … that the telescope’s performance is “arguably twice as good as it was designed to achieve on many fronts.” My response is that indicates poor engineering, since cost effective performance should match design goals, not far exceed them. But in any case, the following is the rest of his list of surprises, which mostly confirms what Lerner noted.

“There are lots of galaxies near the edge of the supposed universe.”

“Some” (I think he’s deliberately trying to minimize this) are “more evolved, more massive and at earlier stages” “than many models and simulations had expected.”

“Some” “might” “even be massive and quite evolved at epochs between 200 and 350 million years after the Big Bang.”

“Many of these galaxies, even the earliest ones, are shaped like disks, rather than being irregular.” He notes that JWST has shown this, “even for galaxies that previously, with Hubble, looked like irregular blobs.”

“And finally, nearby galaxies, in contrast to what Hubble saw, appear smaller and more compact” than previously.

He then call all this “interesting” because mainstream theory says the Universe was born with “fluctuations” in a “particular set of properties” that when allowed to “grow at maximum allowable rates”, “it’s very difficult to get enough galaxies that will be massive enough, evolved enough, and that will form early enough to be consistent with JWST’s observations.” JUST LIKE LERNER SAID.

His only response to this problem is to call it “an exciting challenge for our modern cosmological theories to try and puzzle out”, and then move on. We’re more than halfway through his article now and he has yet to show/prove that ANYTHING Lerner wrote was wrong.

Next, he asks “Why would one state, “the Big Bang never happened?” and then accuses all of us who suspect that’s true of having it “baked into” our “bones to disagree with whatever it is that everyone else thinks, regardless of whatever it is that the evidence shows.” Talk a mass ad-hominem. Never mind that he just got done saying the JWST evidence doesn’t currently agree with the mainstream’s models and simulations. He's forgotten that.

Then, in self-righteous, professorly pontification, Siegel says “there’s a cardinal sin you absolutely must not commit: you cannot ignore the full suite of evidence at hand, particularly the bits that contradict your own position, while focusing on just a few cherry-picked pieces of evidence that support it. This is the hallmark of unscrupulous contrarians, crackpots, and heretics everywhere, as well as those who support long-discredited theories.” Now mind you, he hasn’t yet presented ANY evidence contrary to EU theory in his article. Not a shred. He hasn’t shown that any specific criticism that Lerner levied against mainstream theory regarding the JWST evidence is wrong or that any what Lerner stated about the observations is wrong. No, he’s done nothing but handwave. Clearly, he’s desperate, because it’s actually the mainstream that has been committing his “cardinal sin” for years on end.

Next, Siegel again goes after Lerner, not by pointing out specifics that are wrong in his article, but by labeling the whole article a “messy situation”, with a link to synonyms for that phrase, leading off with the phrase “shit-show”. In other words, he’s got nothing but ad-hominems in his arsenal. That shows how weak his defense of Big Bang really is, folks. That shows how desperate Siegel, knight defender of mainstream thinking, must be to silence Lerner.

Next he mentions Hannes Alfven. Now he dare not toss ad-hominems against a Nobel Laurette in physics. So instead he just states that Alfven was wrong about plasma cosmology by claiming that “a wide variety of observables with a standard explanation within the Big Bang paradigm would need to be replaced with a wild alternative.” Then in the few paragraphs, with a very broad brush, he lists what he says the plasma cosmology alternative would necessitate … namely:

- "The Universe wouldn’t expand, but would oscillate, undergoing periods of expansion and contraction."

- "Distant objects wouldn’t just be receding, but would have comparatively large transverse velocities, leading to large-scale rotational motions on cosmic scales."

- "There would be a cosmic web that formed: not from gravitation pulling objects toward one another on progressively larger and larger scales as time went on, but from massive plasma discharges — like cosmic lightning bolts — that formed cosmic filaments."

- "And any background of radiation that existed would come from these heated plasmas that radiated throughout space, with sum of all of these various 'hot' locations reaching our eyes, today, as that background radiation."

Now I think most of us here would argue that his characterization of PC/EU is overly simplistic, very incomplete and either misleading or downright wrong. But we don't get a voice. He's the only one allowed to use the mainstream media and going to tell everyone what we think. And then, he's going to dismiss plasma cosmology out of hand by “observing” that

- “The Universe doesn’t oscillate”.

- “Large transverse velocities would show up as overall cosmic rotations on a wide variety of scales” and “there are very strong constraints on it” that “rule out” plasma cosmology "on this criterion alone".

- “The cosmic web that forms provides some of the best evidence possible for a Universe filled with cold dark matter in about five times the abundance as normal matter, forming structures precisely in line with General Relativity’s predictions in an expanding Universe. Quantitatively, a plasma cosmology cannot reproduce this success.”

- “And the background of radiation, as illustrated above, can neither come from a series of hot objects that have cooled down nor from reflected starlight, as the perfect blackbody spectrum of the cosmic microwave background cannot be reproduced by those imperfect “series of blackbodies” that would be summed together in the alternative case. This last observation was enough to falsify Alfvén’s idea more than a year before he even proposed it; the plasma cosmology was literally dead-on-arrival.”

Again, most of us would argue that those statements are either misleading or wrong, overly simplistic, or very incomplete. But we get no opportunity in mainstream publications or media or even Siegel's articles to argue our position. Only hacks like Ethan Siegel are allowed to use the mainstream media. And they do so to publish strawmen, claiming they accurately represent our theories and views, which they then knock down with what amount to lies. They eagerly do this because they are paid well to publish PROPAGANDA. Their only goal is to keep the funding going because their lifestyles (houses, cars, vacations, etc etc etc) all depend on it. They don’t want a fair battle of ideas so the means justify the ends.

Siegel then concludes his article with another set of ad-hominems against all of us. He writes “It’s much easier to make a sensational, attention-grabbing claim than it is to do the heavy lifting of going through the full suite of evidence and drawing a responsible, scientifically accurate conclusion.” To which I say, that's the pot calling the kettle black. And he writes “‘shouting the loudest’ won’t get you very far among scrupulous scientists, and the plasma cosmology will continue to languish in scientific obscurity: exactly where it belongs on the basis of its lack-of-merits.” That’s ironic given he’s prone to “shouting the loudest”, given his calling and need to propagandize the masses with his mainstream untruths.

So, in conclusion, folks ... if you ask me, Ethan Siegel is nothing but a mainstream bully pretending to be a “science communicator”. The truth is he long ago forgot what science is really about. He sold out to the Big Business of Big Science and the agenda of the left. That’s why he also supports the mainstream’s other big scams ... Covid-19, Climate Change, and Controlled Fusion. Lerner latest article has successfully reduced him to using adhominems and ignoring/misrepresenting his opponent's views ... in other words, showing HIS true colors. Just saying ... :D

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 Aug 27, 2022 5:45 pm

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2022/ ... rs-though/
Webb telescope challenging what astronomers thought they knew

… snip …

The first scientific results have emerged in recent weeks, and what the telescope has seen in deepest space is a little puzzling. Some of those distant galaxies are strikingly massive. A general assumption had been that early galaxies – which formed not long after the first stars ignited – would be relatively small and misshapen. Instead, some of them are big, bright and nicely structured.
Just like Lerner said.
“The models just don’t predict this,” Garth Illingworth, an astronomer at the University of California at Santa Cruz, said of the massive early galaxies. “How do you do this in the universe at such an early time? How do you form so many stars so quickly?”
Just like Lerner said.
Kartaltepe said she is certainly not worried about any tension between astrophysical theory and what the Webb is seeing: “We might be scratching our heads one day, but a day later, ‘Oh, this all makes sense now’.”
Yeah … you can’t afford to show doubt when your paychecks depend on the mainstream model.
What has surprised astronomer Dan Coe of the Space Telescope Science Institute are the number of nicely shaped, disklike galaxies.
“We thought the early universe was this chaotic place where there’s all these clumps of star formation, and things are all a-jumble,” Coe said.
Just like Lerner said.
The easiest explanation for those surprisingly massive galaxies is that, at least for some of them, there’s been a miscalculation – perhaps due to a trick of light.
Oh, they wish.
The distant galaxies are very red. They are, in astronomical lingo, “redshifted.” The wavelengths of light from these objects have been stretched by the expansion of the universe. The ones that look the reddest – that have the highest redshift – are presumed to be the farthest away.

But dust can be throwing off the calculations. Dust can absorb blue light, and redden the object. It could be that some of these very distant, highly red-shifted galaxies are just very dusty, and not actually as far away (and as “young”) as they appear. That would realign the observations with what astronomers expected.
Dust does not cause redshift. That’s what mainstream scientists have maintained for decades. The light scattering by dust can cause a galaxy to look red, but the wavelength of the lines in the spectrogram are not shifted by the dust. That’s what they said. Now, all of a sudden, they’re changing their tune? Their motive? Hmmmmmm …

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

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

Unread post by crawler » Sat Aug 27, 2022 10:16 pm

I think i have posted here before that....
Krafft 1930-60 said that a photon stretches as it approaches a say star....
Conrad Ranzan say 2017 said that a photon also stretches as it departs a say star....
Hence old light is redshifted.
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

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 Aug 28, 2022 10:25 pm

No doubt about it.

The mainstreams' “science communicators” and astronomers/astrophysicists are VERY worried about Eric Lerner’s latest article.

Consider this article by one of the *communicators* …

https://iflscience.com/heres-why-people ... eory-65038
Here's Why People Are (Wrongly) Claiming JWST Images Disprove The Big Bang Theory

According to an article that's been going [meaning Eric Lerner’s lastest article] around, JWST has found stars older than the universe itself.

By James Felton
Now read that again, folks. Mr Felton is a *communicator* so I assume he writes what he means. And the above seems to claim that Lerner said JWST found stars “older THAN THE UNIVERSE ITSELF.” Then he announces that Lerner’s claim there wasn't a Big Bang is “pure nonsense.” Well, if Lerner had actually said there wasn't a Big Bang based on that claim, it would be pure nonsense. But he didn't. Because he didn’t say “older than the universe”, he said “Big Bang”, meaning the date the mainstream claims the Big Bang occurred. Perhaps Mr Felton doesn't realize Lerner doesn’t believe the Big Bang started the universe ... that it existed before it? Hence, what he says is not “pure nonsense” but merely a belief that the universe is much older than Big Bang proponents believe. That is not an unreasonable belief. MANY MANY scientists over the years have believed that.

Then Felton goes after Lerner for saying mainstream astrophysicists are in a "panic" and quoting an astronomer named Allison Kirkpatrick saying “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” Why he’d attacker Lerner for that, when she admits she said it (and now says “I stand by that statement”) is curious because that statement is most certainly indicative of deep concerns (panic?) about mainstream theory given JWST results, even if Allison is now going by the moniker “Allison the Big Bang happened Kirkpatrick”.

Yes, she's out there playing the victim ... saying she stands “accused of saying there was no Big Bang” ... when in fact Lerner didn’t accuse her of that. Again, ad-hominems seem to be at the forefront of the arguments being used by Lerner’s detractors. The source of that quote was an article in Nature about what the JWST has found: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02056-5 . That article states that Webb’s images reveal a “wealth of galaxies” “appearing as they did just a few hundred million years after the Big Bang”, and that the pictures “have shattered astronomers’ PRECONCEPTIONS about the early universe.” Just like Lerner said.

The article notes “there are an awful lot of galaxies way out there”. Jeyhan Kartaltepe, an astronomer at the Rochester Institute of Technology in New York, is quoted saying “There’s hardly any empty space that doesn’t have something.” Marco Castellano, an astronomer at the National Institute for Astrophysics in Rome apparently told Nature.com “his colleagues weren’t expecting to find any galaxies that distant in this small part of the sky.” Sounds like the results were completely unexpected. Just like Lerner said.

And not only that. Next the article says “Webb’s distant galaxies are also turning out to have more structure than astronomers had expected.” A “surprisingly large number of distant galaxies” “are shaped like disks.” Then it notes that astronomers had concluded based on Hubble images “that distant galaxies are more irregularly shaped than nearby ones.” Their “theory was that early galaxies were more often distorted by interactions with neighbouring galaxies.” But “Webb observations suggest there are up to ten times as many distant disk-shaped galaxies as previously thought.” All of this is just as Lerner stated in his "pure nonsense" article.

And Allison Kirkpatrick, who now suddenly wants to claim she’s just an “observer” who studies “black holes” and has been falsely accused of not *believing* in the Big Bang gods … is quoted in the Nature.com article saying “we are able to see that galaxies have disks way earlier than we thought they did.” Nature.com then indicates "she said" without the quotes "that’s a problem because it contradicts earlier theories of galaxy evolution". “We’re going to have to figure that out,” she said to Nature. I’d say Lerner is absolutely right. Big Bang proponents are little panicked ... they have a big problem that they are now trying to sweep under the rug using their trained “science communicators.”

And at the very end of the Nature.com article, Kirkpatrick is quoted saying EXACTLY what Lerner quoted her saying ... without any other context. She shouldn’t be mad at Lerner. She should complain to Nature.com for apparently not quoting her in context (assuming she did in fact tell Nature that despite all that JWST has revealed, she’s still a Big Bang sycophant). Otherwise, she protests too much.

Oh, here’s one more big finding in the Nature.com article that’s totally in line with what Lerner said in his article. “Closer galaxies are smaller than expected.” The article states “At the infrared wavelengths detected by Webb, most of the massive galaxies looked much smaller than they did in Hubble images. ‘It potentially changes our whole view of how galaxy sizes evolve over time,’ Suess [an astronomer at the University of California] says. Hubble studies suggested that galaxies start out small and grow bigger over time, but the Webb findings hint that Hubble didn’t have the whole picture, and so galactic evolution might be more complicated than scientists had anticipated.”

Now Mr Felton, *science communicator* extradinaire, says "Kirkpatrick suggests that images from JWST "support the Big Bang model because they show us that early galaxies were different than the galaxies we see today – they were much smaller!" To support that quote, he links this article (https://www.cnet.com/science/space/no-j ... -big-bang/ ) by another *science communicator* named Jackson Ryan, who, like Felton, attacks Lerner by claiming he "misused" a quote from Kirkpatrick, WHEN HE DID NO SUCH THING. Ryan also declares "it's disingenuous to claim the early images and study results have contradicted the Big Bang theory" ... when clearly, based on the above quotes from Nature.com, he wasn't disingenuous at all.

Then Ryan states "Kirkpatrick notes JWST's images actually do the opposite. She said they "support the Big Bang model because they show us that early galaxies were different than the galaxies we see today -- they were much smaller!" Problem is, that's not what the Nature.com article states. It's states they found that the closer galaxies are actually "smaller than expected" ... suggesting that earlier instrumentation may not have shown the true size of galaxies. And once again, Kirkpatrick statement completely ignores what Lerner says in his own article about galaxy smallness. She doesn't address the argument he makes about it. She ignores it ... if in fact, she even read his article. Like I said earlier, ignoring what our side of this debate says is a prime tactic of the mainstream proponents.

In any case, back to Felton's attacks. He next goes after Lerner's statement that some of the stars in the galaxies identified as being only 400 to 500 million years after the Big Bang have stellar populations over a billion years old. He doesn't show this isn't true, instead he misdirects the reader by quoting a Dr Keating saying "we have to first make sure that the calibration between redshift and distance is calibrated", as the expansion of the universe causes redshift". That declaration has very little to do with Lerner's statement because no one in the Big Bang community is claiming there aren't galaxies out there within 400 to 500 million years of the Big Bang. The question is do some of those galaxies have stellar populations that have to be a billion years old. Which Felton doesn't dispute ... note that.

Well, since Felton won't, let's examine the claim there might stars older than the mainstream's Big Bang age? Is Lerner the only one who believe this "pure nonsense"? Here's an article at space.com (https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star-be ... verse.html) that states
In 2000, scientists looked to date they thought was the oldest star in the universe. They made observations via the European Space Agency's (ESA) (opens in new tab) Hipparcos satellite and estimated that HD140283 — or Methuselah as it's commonly known — was a staggering 16 billion years old.
The figure was so shocking that they carefully reexamined their conclusion, and managed to get the age down to 14.46 billion years. Further refinements saw the age fall to 14.27 billion years. Now the answer was at least in the error bounds of the 13.8 billion year Big Bang. Then another group of astronomers came up with 12 billion as an answer. It seemed all was well with the universe. BUT then the article points out that the 13.8 Billion figure may not be right. That number is based on an expansion rate (Hubble Constant) of 67.4 km per second per megaparsec. But more recent measurements show much higher values (73-77), and the higher the value, the shorter the age of the universe. In fact, a value of 77 would yield an age of no more than 12.7 billion years. And a 2019 study published in Science proposed a constant of 82.4, would leads to an age of only 11.4 billion years.

All in all, I'd say it looks like there is indeed still an open question in the mainstream about whether any star ages exceed the stated Big Bang age. But Lerner isn't even talking about the Methuselah star. He's not talking about stars lasting 14 billion years. He's talking about whether stars observed in distant galaxies ... 400-500 million years after the Big Bang ... are already older 500 million years. I know the answer to this. I assume Lerner has evidence to prove his statement ... he usually does. And if Felton had evidence to prove otherwise, I assume he would. But he didn't.

Instead, Felton then concludes his article with the most ludicrous AND DESPERATE argument of all ... that we should just "trust" "science communicators". That they'd tell us if stars were found that were older than the universe (Big Bang). Yeah ... sure ... just like they've told the public so many other things that contradict mainstream theories (that we, here at Thunderbolts, know about.) NOT. Just like they told the public about models by plasma physicists that explained galaxy rotation curves without the need for dark matter. NOT. No, I don't think we can trust *science communicators*.

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 » Mon Aug 29, 2022 12:51 am

BeAChooser
I think it's a shame that Lerner's latest paper has garnered so little interest here at Thunderbolts.
Speaking for myself, the lack of posting does not equal little interest.
I have read Learner's book and recent article.
A turn by the mainstream toward Plasma Cosmology
is probably the best we can hope for from the new JWST information,
but it would certainly be a giant step in the right direction.

Thanks, BeAChooser, for laying out all the detailed appropriate criticism of the
mainstream attempt to slog on in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Big Bang is nonsense.
Jack

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 » Mon Aug 29, 2022 3:56 am

@BeAChooser You've outdone yourself with your latest post. I second JacMacs thanks.

And this gem from your post:
trained “science communicators.”
Would that be like trained seals? Or maybe housebroken? Communicator Felton could benefit by being reminded that:

"Science is the organized skepticism in the reliability of expert opinion." ~ Richard P. Feynman

"Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, is it reasonable?" ~ Richard P. Feynman
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 » Tue Aug 30, 2022 3:29 am

Thanks for your responses, jacmac and jackokie.

Lerner certainly has stirred up a hornets nest.

One science communicator after another is attacking him.

Here's another ...

Science.the wire.in allowed Karthik Vinod, a baby astrophysicists right out of the University of Manchester, to do a hit piece on Lerner: https://science.thewire.in/the-sciences ... bang-jwst/ . He writes that “Numerous astronomers and astrophysicists have rebutted Lerner’s claim”, claiming he’s opportunistic and that his claim is thin on proof and supported by inconsistent arguments … none of which to me seem valid criticisms, having actually read Lerner’s article. Vinod also claims the astrophysicists "whose work Lerner cite[d]" have “distanced themselves from him.” The problem is they were never close to him in the first place and he never once suggested any Big Bangers agreed with him.

Later the author misrepresents Lerner by saying he’s a proponent of “a universe that is static and immortal” which “invites the intervention of a divine creator.” Well, first, Lerner doesn’t advocate a “static” universe. Far from it. He posits a “Steady State” universe and you'd think and astrophysics major would know the difference. If the author had actually read Lerner’s the Big Bang Never Happened book, he’d know that. If he’d even used Wikipedia, he’d know that.

And it’s not the Steady State that invites the intervention of a divine creator, it’s the Big Bang. In fact, in Lerner's book, he has a chapter titled "Cosmology and Theology", and the first thing he does is accurately observe that “from theologians to physicists to novelists, it is widely believed that the Big Bang theory supports Christian concepts of a creator.” He backs this up by citing an article in the New York Times that argued scientists and novelists “were returning to God, in large part through the influence of the Big Bang.”

VInod's next criticism seem to be that Lerner’s beliefs aren’t original … as if that matters one iota. Besides, not a thing that science *communicator* Vinod says in his article is original either. But I don’t hold that against him. ;)

Next he rehashes the beliefs of mainstream cosmology without touching on a single point Lerner made in the article he’s trying to rebut. Like all the others, he simply ignores what Lerner actually wrote and his chief argument is that “steady state theory” has faded away from “scientific discourse.” What he overlooks is that “discourse” takes a participant from both sides and one of the sides of this debate has historically refused to acknowledge what the other actually says. Mainstream astrophysics not only ignore their opponents, they have rigged things so their opponents can’t even publish their side in media where a “discourse” might occur. In short, the Big Bangers have been hiding from “scientific discourse” for a long time.

Now Vinod claims that Lerner’s claims were debunked by Edward L. Wright “on multiple counts” and provides a link to Wright’s web page. What he doesn’t do, is provide a link to Lerner’s response to Wright's criticisms: namely, https://web.archive.org/web/20160108004 ... rg/p25.htm . See? That’s an example of mainstream science communicators only telling half the story. They don’t want you to make up your own mind. They want to influence your belief by only telling the side they support.

Vinod’s next tactic is to resort to adhominems. He quotes physicist and “science communicator”, Sean Carroll, from a 2004 article (that he doesn’t link) calling Lerner a “crackpot”, then provides no details. So I tell you what, let’s see if we can discover those details.

Here’s Carroll’s blog post from 2004: http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.co ... rated.html , titled “Doubt and dissent are not tolerated”. That’s HIS attitude … not very *scientific*, if you ask me. In the article he mentions Lerner and calls him a crackpot. That happens after linking an open letter on Cosmology that Lerner published in 2004 (http://cosmology.info/media/open-letter ... mology.html ), a letter which was signed by 34 different scientists, including Anthony Peratt and Halton Arp.

In the letter, it’s observed that Big Bang “relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities that have never been observed — inflation, dark matter, and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.”

I have to agree with all that and everything else in the letter (which makes me a crackpot too, I guess).

Now here we are, nearly 20 years later, and nothing has changed. Every single statement in the letter Lerner and 33 other scientists signed is still true. The gno … er ... hypothetical entities that Carroll believes in are still propping up Big Bang. And what was Carroll’s criticism of that letter? He said the “alternatives to the Big Bang are just plain silly.” Wow … that’s convincing. And rather ironic.

Carroll then announces that he “usually” keeps his “intellectual disagreements on the level of reasoned debate, rather than labeling people [he] disagree[s] with as ‘dumb’“. He says he “reserve[s]” that smear (my term) “for the President [meaning George Bush]; but in this case I have to make an exception. They just aren’t, for the most part, very smart.” LOL! Then he singles out Eric Lerner. Wow!

Now before I note what he said about Lerner, I want to point out that he’s not being entirely truthful. Labeling people as crackpots (i.e., “dumb”) is something he frequently does. For example, in 2006, he published an article in Discover magazine titled “Crackpots, contrarians, and the free market”. In 2008 he published an article in Discover Magazine titled “Reasons to Believe (that Creationists are Crackpots)”. In 2009, he published a statement on his blog titled “The Varieties of CrackPot Experience”. It seems every few years he’s publishing something about crackpots, and more than once he’s claimed he doesn’t “usually” do it … just before he does it again. Just saying …

Now Carroll labels Lerner a crackpot in part because Lerner says the Big Bang “has no empirical successes” (and again have to agree with Lerner) but, mostly, because he says that Lerner said "The hypothetical dark energy field violates one of the best-tested laws of physics--the conservation of energy and matter, since the field produces energy at a titanic rate out of nothingness. To toss aside this basic conservation law in order to preserve the Big Bang theory is something that would never be acceptable in any other field of physics." Carrol got the latter quote (without giving attribution) from this webpage: http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/htm ... erner.html . Based on that, Carroll said Lerner doesn’t understand the basics, since in an expanding universe, thanks to General Relativity, total energy need not be conserved. It has “Nothing fancy to do with dark energy.” Then he says that if he “gets to decide whether to allocate money to Big Bang cosmology, or divert it to a crackpot”, who doesn’t believe that, “it’s an easy choice.”

Well, the first problem with the aboe is that what Carroll quoted was not written by Lerner, which he’d have realized had he rubbed two neurons together. The proof of that is there's a similar page on Anthony Peratt (http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/htm ... eratt.html ) and Hannes Alfven (http://www.mysearch.org.uk/website1/htm ... lfven.html ) at the website, all written in third person. And the Hannes Alfven page was put up “06 October 2018” (according to this: http://search.freefind.com/find.html?pa ... cs=1&fr=10 ), more than 20 years after Alfven died! There as similar pages on all sorts of dead people on the website.

Carroll should have gotten a clue on the first page of the overall website (http://www.mysearch.org.uk ) which states in the very first paragraph “The websites linked to the navigation bar above are primarily a reflection of my own personal interests … snip … As such, the websites are, and will probably always remain, work in progress. … snip … So, as indicated, this website essentially reflects a personal learning process and, as such, it is recognized that some information may be in error and will therefore require correction.” Now Carroll may be an astrophysicist … but that doesn’t mean he isn’t “dumb”. I think he just proved it. And on top of that, how can Carroll know what dark matter does or doesn’t do, when he and the rest of his colleagues still haven’t a clue what it is? When they haver no real proof it even exists after 50 years of looking.

And just for the record, the truth is a whole lot of people must be crackpots (“dumb”) in Carroll's mind because a whole lot of people question whether dark matter conserves energy. So many people have questioned it that *science communicator* Ethan Siegel had to publish a whole article on the question (https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/i ... 6572cc6853 ) in which, after explaining what the mainstream thinks is going on with dark matter, he writes: “‘Wait a minute,’ I hear you objecting, ‘if you’re just spontaneously creating more space out of nothing, and space has an intrinsic energy, aren’t you violating the conservation of energy?’ It’s a good objection. It’s a reasonable objection. And it’s not one that I’m going to weasel my way out of on the technicality that in General Relativity, 'energy' is not a technically well-defined quantity. Gee … did Seigel just call Carroll a weasel? He does go on to claim Dark Matter doesn't violate conservation of energy, "if you choose to allow it [energy] to be defined." So maybe they're still friends.

In any case, let's return to discussing the rest of what Karthik Vinod said about Lerner, starting with him saying that “negative feedback and derision hasn’t dissuaded Lerner from continuing to publish his views”. I say that's a good thing for science. He then says Lerner’s articles “continue to harbour a cascade of inconsistencies.” But I’m still waiting to hear what those are for Vinod or any of these *science communicators*.

Next he notes that Lerner’s lastest article claimed “the galaxies the telescope [the JWST] observed were ‘too smooth, too old, too small’ to allow for the Big Bang. He contended that the universe appears to have had too many disc galaxies when it was 400 million years old.” Instead of showing Lerner is wrong about that (and he clearly can’t since the Nature article admits these facts are puzzling Big Bang astrophysicists), he attacks Lerner by saying his arguments are about galaxy formation theory, not the Big Bang model, “prompting many physicists to call his unqualified extrapolation opportunistic.”

Now, first of all, I just did a Google search using the two keywords “Eric Lerner” and “opportunistic”, and the only hits I got were to Vinod’s article. I tried “Eric Lerner” and “opportunism” and only got links to Vinod’s article. Where are all these scientists Vinod claims are calling Lerner opportunistic? Maybe in twitter world? Well, Vinod links in his article a tweet by an “astrophysicist” named Leonardo Ferrerria who mentions “opportunistic people” in that tweet. But that’s in the context of “people disapproving” of the title of his paper “Panic! at the Disks” which Lerner cited. And the people who respond to his tweet comment about his title, not Lerner.

Furthermore, when you go to Ferraria’s twitter page (https://twitter.com/astroferreira), you find out he’s a PhD “student” in Astronomy at the University of Nottingham. And you find him tweeting this: “A good summary of the whole story surrounding the 'big bang is wrong' issue. Opportunism is a very soft word to describe what this dude did.” BUT … and here’s the kicker … that tweet is a RESPONSE to a link to Vinod’s article accusing Lerner of opportunism which was posted 3 hours earlier! Sounds like Vinod encouraged the use of that word by Ferraria, instead of reporting it. I call FRAUD. And where are all the others that Vinod claimed used that term? I think he's at best made an “his unqualified extrapolation.” Just saying.

I still have to ask … is this guy for real? Can he not understand why if the observed early universe is not what the Big Bang theorists *predicted* … and it isn’t … there’s good cause to now question whether Big Bang Theory is correct? That’s the way science works.

Next, Vinod makes the bizarre argument that since the Big Bang Model was born out of mathematics of general relativity, “to deny the Big Bang is, in the absence of extraordinary evidence, to effectively deny the universe’s evolution.” Huh? I again ask, is this guy for real? Where's the evolution if the early galaxies number and look much like the current ones?

Finally, and almost laughably, Vinod bolsters his argument by naming two other “astrophysicists and "popular YouTubers" who “supported” Ferreira’s “findings”. But note, Lerner didn’t dispute Ferreira’s findings … that “We found more disks than we anticipated...<Panic!> “. He embraced them.

He named Rebecca Smethurst as one of those YouTubers, and thinks it’s significant that Smethurst called Lerner’s positions “pseudo-science” in her tweet. Now just so you know, Smethurst’s Wikipedia page says she’s a Junior Research Fellow at the University of Oxford. She got her doctorate in 2017 and like Kirkpatrick now studies black holes ... and their effect on star formation. And she considers herself a *science communicator* whose mission in life is to enlighten the public about the mainstream’s countless gno … er … hypotheticals. Now she hasn’t yet published her own article or done a YouTube on Lerner yet, but someone has certainty done a YouTube on her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP3u42eBDDY . LOL! :)

As for Michael Merrifield, of course he’d support Ferraria. He’s a professor of Astronomy at the same University of Nottingham, in the same group as Ferraria. In fact, Ferraria was probably one of his students at some point or even now. Perhaps because of that, he did an interview defending the title of Ferraria’s paper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7lxzS6K9PU . In the interview he also admits that JWST is finding galaxies that are not what they expected … that they are finding about 50% of early galaxies are spirals … which is TEN TIMES what they expected … just like Lerner’s article stated. He admits “it was a very unexpected result … hence the panic, but it’s not, you know, it’s not turning the Big Bang upside down.” He then says “it’s turning our understanding of how galaxies form a bit upside down but it’s not revolutionizing absolutely everything.” No … of course not. :roll:

The interviewer responds “That does seem significant to me that we used to think the early galaxies were a bit chaotic and turbulent but actually they’re pretty [much] like they are now.” Merrifield nods his head, thus agreeing with what Lerner wrote in his article about the observations, but then he explains “there’s a reason”. He notes that Hubble was primarily an optical/ultraviolet telescope whereas JWST is an infrared telescope. He says that an ultraviolet telescope will tend to pick up younger, more energetic stars, which would make the galaxies it sees look … more “clumpy” … and make scientist “naturally” expect more of the same farther out. But I see this as an example of narrow thinking. They can speculate about dark matter, dark energy, inflation and countless other hypothetical entities, but not one of them speculated that switching to an infrared telescope would make galaxies look different? Hmmmm. Maybe its' that same narrow thinking that's keeping them in the Dark Matter Box they're in now?

Anyway, Vinod ends his Lerner hit piece by quoting another physicist and “science communicator”, Sabin Hossenfelder, who says “the Big Bang singularity is a mathematical artifact and not what really happened. … snip … We should be using a better theory, one that includes the quantum properties of space. Unfortunately, we don’t have the theory for his calculation. And so, all that we can reliably say is: If we extrapolate Einstein’s equations back in time, we get the Big Bang Singularity.” Oh goody. Just what we need ... to add more hypothetical unprovable stuff to the theory of the Universe.

I have a few more quotes from her.

From an August 27th tweet, https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1563497613483134977 , “Physicists have many theories for the beginning of our universe: A big bang, a big bounce, a black hole, a network, a collision of membranes, a gas of strings, and the list goes on. What does this mean? It means we don't know how the universe began.” And we’ve wasted how many billions of dollars pursuing this question the past half dozen decades?

And this is an article from August 25th:

https://time.com/6208174/maybe-the-universe-thinks/
Maybe the Universe Thinks. Hear Me Out

Our universe contains about 200 billion galaxies. These galaxies are not uniformly distributed – under the pull of gravity, they lump into clusters, and the clusters form superclusters. Between these clusters, galaxies align along thin threads, the “galactic filaments”, which can be several hundred million light-years long. Galactic clusters and filaments are surrounded by voids that contain very little matter. Altogether, the cosmic web looks somewhat like a human brain.

To be more precise, the distribution of matter in the universe looks a little like the “connectome,” the network of nerve connections in the human brain. Neurons in the human brain, too, form clusters, and they connect by axons, that are long nerve fibers which send electrical impulses from one neuron to another.

The resemblance between the human brain and the universe is not entirely superficial; it has been rigorously analyzed in a 2020 study by the Italian astrophysicist Franco Vazza and neuroscientist Alberto Feletti. They calculated how many structures of different sizes are in the human brain’s connectome and in the cosmic web, and reported “a remarkable similarity”.

Brain samples on scales below about 1 millimeter and the distribution of matter in the universe up to about 300 million light years, they found, are structurally similar. Could it be, then, that the universe is a giant brain in which our galaxy is merely one neuron? Maybe we are witnessing its self-reflection while we pursue our own thoughts
And that said, Vinod cites her as an expert yet dares call Lerner a crackpot? Doubly ironic, if the universe does think, what do you imagine is the method with which it’s “neurons” pass information around? Yeah … electric current traveling in those galactic filaments. :lol:

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 Aug 30, 2022 7:48 am

I notice that Anton Petrov … *science communicator* … also takes a shot at Lerner in a new video …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2DOCWyyhdI

He opens the video by saying that the James Webb images have created “a lot of buzz with certain articles making a lot of claims that are basically, not true. And one article, in particular” … Lerner’s. Then a moment later he says he wants to talk about this “without being too critical or maybe too judgmental. But essential focusing on the facts.” Great! But as you'll see, he didn't mean that.

He starts off by wanting to talk about where he thinks Lerner “got things wrong initially or at least where I think all of this started.” Then, believe it or not, he then points to Ferraria’s paper, mentioned earlier, “Panic! At the Disks: [blah blah blah]”, suggesting that was Lerner's starting point due to the “unfortunate title” of the paper. My response is where in the world have you been all this time, Anton? In a cave? You're video makes me think that you've never heard of Lerner. Do you honestly think the word “panic” in that title is what prompted Lerner to write his article? LOL!

Petrov then pumps out a strawman. He implies that Lerner suggested Ferraria was confirming the Big Bang didn’t happen, and then knocks that strawman down by stating the obvious ... that Ferraria and his coauthors didn’t change their minds about Big Bang. The problem is Lerner didn’t say or even suggest that Ferraria had changed his mind … or abandoned his allegiance to the Big Bang gods. Lerner didn’t say the other authors of the article supported his view in any way either. He just said they found observations that were not at all expected and they used the work "panic". Which is absolutely true. Petrov is being dishonest.

Then Petrov misleads the audience further by claiming Ferraria’s paper didn’t discover “something that was completely unexpected”, when in fact it did. He says “They’re [meaning the Ferraria paper authors] just saying that we’re discovering things that were just a little bit different from what we expected.” That's GARBAGE. Professor Merrifield, likely a supervisor of Ferraria’s work at the university, in the video I linked above, defended the title of Ferraria’s article’s, then admitted that what they found was a “very unexpected result … hence, panic!” That's not a "little bit".

Think about the situation a moment, folks. If the mainstream wasn’t deeply concerned about what was found by JWST, they’d be ignoring Lerner's article. They’d be confident that his concerns would get no traction. But the truth in Lerner’s article actually does threaten their primary motivation for ALL their projects … the money they continue to get from taxpayers that pays for their comfortable lifestyles. They can’t afford to let the science work itself out ... let the public decide on it's own ... hence, they sent out their attack dogs, the *science communicators* like Petrov, to try and destroy Lerner.

Next, Petrov continues, saying “But more important, we’re discovering a lot of evidence that does suggest that Big Bang indeed happened, and happened just as predicted by various studies.” It’s not clear whether he’s talking about what’s in Ferraria’s work or referring to astrophysicists in general, and he provide NO details as to the nature of this evidence. Then immediately he goes into how quickly the data is coming in and offers that excuse to explain Lerner’s article, saying “it’s easy to start misinterpreting some of the results or some of the discoveries.” Sorry, Petrov, but Lerner hasn’t misinterpreted any of the results or discoveries. His article, as I proved above, is 100% accurate regarding what Nature.com and others are reporting JWST has found.

Then, Petrov moves on to discuss Lerner quoting Alison Kirkpatrick as saying “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning, wondering if everything I've ever done is wrong.” Petrov really displays his desperation now. He says “she’s not saying that the Big Bang did not happen or that our cosmology is completely wrong. She’s essentially only questioning the early evolution of the universe because the actual observations as I mentioned in the video before seem to be slightly different from what scientists expected.” To which I say POPPYCOCK.

First of all, Petrov is LYING. The results are not “slightly” different from what scientists expected. They are "very" different. And second, why in the world would Kirkpatrick say she can’t sleep at night … and wonder if "EVERYTHING she’s EVER done" is wrong, if she was only questioning the early evolution of the universe, about which she isn't really involved? That makes absolutely no sense. No, something else had to have shaken her confidence. Bear in mind, she’s admits she’s not a cosmologist. Her study area is black holes. That suggests the JWST results are not what she expected even in that area and now, for the first time, she questioning the whole edifice of the Big Bang cosmology/astrophysics. EVERYTHING she's EVER done.

Next, Petrov accuses Lerner of “claiming that the Big Bang never happened because of [Kirkpatrick's] one quote”. He says Lerner saying that was a “huge disservice to the scientific community.” My response is Petrov's a LIAR because Lerner did no such thing. Lerner expressed lots of reasons, based on JWST data that he was completely accurate about, for questioning the Big Bang theory. His quoting Kirkpatrick was just to show that all is not well in the mainstream astrophysics community. Doubt is setting in. Members of the community are very worried about where they now find themselves. I think they worry that they've walked out on to a limb, and JWST is now cutting it off. And they don’t know what to do, other than attack anyone who suggests the JWST data is problematic for them. Their funding depends on discrediting the messenger … Eric Lerner. So it’s all hands on deck for that. That’s how concerned they are, because they’re beginning to realize that maybe their funding could come to an end if the truth gets out.

Then, 3 minutes into the 15 minute video, Petrov gives up trying to cast Lerner in a bad light and says “but instead of focusing on that article [Lerner’s], that I personally did not find very interesting, and that is kind of wrong to be honest, I actually wanted to focus on the facts as we know about the Big Bang and why we now believe even more that it very likely did happen.” Notice, he proved nothing about Lerner’s article or position. He didn’t successfully challenge even one fact Lerner mentioned. He lied repeatedly about how different the results are from what was expected and did provide any details to show that EU model alternative is wrong. He essentially just stated “I still believe so you should too” and repeated the same lame, dishonest falsehoods that all the other *communicators* did to try and cancel Lerner. And now he's going to say "Look, a squirrel!"

So, with nothing else in his arsenal, at this point in his video, he switches back to just ignoring EU advocates entirely and regurgitating the propaganda and outright lies that the mainstream community have used over many decades to foster public belief in the Big Bang in order to keep the funding for the Big Bang Church alive. There's no point in my reviewing the rest of his video because you all know it. It’s just the same old Big Bang fairy tale, told for the hundred thousandth time by mainstream tools (like him), who, by the way, also depend on taxpayer funding to keep Big Bang, Dark Matter, you name it projects alive. What in the world would he do if he didn’t get paid to put out tripe like this? He might actually have to work for a living. Just saying …

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 » Tue Aug 30, 2022 2:03 pm

BeAChooser
and did provide any details to show that EU model alternative is wrong.
I think you meant to say did NOT provide details. But that is not my reason to post.
he switches back to just ignoring EU advocates entirely
Eric Lerner is definitely NOT an EU advocate or supporter.
He believes the sun is internally powered.
He promotes Plasma Cosmology (PC)
The EU and PC are different, with the EU basically agreeing with PC.
He is the president and chief scientist of LPPFUSION.
https://www.lppfusion.com/team/
I have read his book, The Big Bang Never Happened.
In it, he makes statements against the EU
which I cannot remember exactly right now.

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 Aug 30, 2022 6:19 pm

jacmac wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 2:03 pm I think you meant to say did NOT provide details.
Yes, thanks.
jacmac wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 2:03 pm Eric Lerner is definitely NOT an EU advocate or supporter.
Lerner is the only reason I'm even here today. If it were not his book ... his advocacy 30 years ago ... I likely wouldn't know about or care about EU or whatever you want to call this. And how can say a scientist who writes (in his latest article … the one this thread is about) that plasma filamentation "is the process by which electric currents, and the magnetic fields they create, draw plasma into the lacy system of filaments that we see at all scales in the universe from the aurorae in the earth’s atmosphere to the solar corona to galactic spiral arms, even to clusters of galaxies. Together with gravitational forces, plasma filamentation is one of the basic processes in the formation of planets, stars, galaxies and structures at all scale" is not an EU advocate or supporter? He most definitely is, jacmac.

Look ... type "electric universe" into Google and the first hit you get is https://www.electricuniverse.info , a website about EU which states right off the bat that “The Electric Universe theory highlights the importance of electricity throughout the Universe. It is based on the recognition of existing natural electrical phenomena (eg. lightning, St Elmo’s Fire), and the known properties of plasmas (ionized “gases”) which make up 99.999% of the visible universe, and react strongly to electro-magnetic fields." I see no difference between that statement and Lerner's.

The "About" page of The Thunderbolts PROJECT, quotes Talbott and Thornhill, right off the bat saying "From the smallest particle to the largest galactic formation, a web of electrical circuitry connects and unifies all of nature, organizing galaxies, energizing stars, giving birth to planets and, on our own world, controlling weather and animating biological organisms. There are no isolated islands in an electric universe." That was Lerner's main theme 30 years ago and it still is his main theme.
jacmac wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 2:03 pm He believes the sun is internally powered.
He promotes Plasma Cosmology (PC)
The EU and PC are different, with the EU basically agreeing with PC.
You may not agree with everything Lerner believes ... I don't either ... but I see EU/PC/PU as a big tent. I treat them as interchangeable when talking with outsiders because none of us know enough to know what is exactly correct in the details. We've barely dipped our toes in the water. So while you may focus on the differences between them, I focus on the similarities. And what’s important right now is that we all think plasma and electricity rule the universe, not gravity. We all want at least some money and attention to be diverted from the endless search for Bang Bang gnomes to the investigation of electrical phenomena in space.

So the way I see it, regardless of what details Lerner believes, he's a friend in this firefight. So he needs our support, not criticism, especially since it's my opinion that his latest little article has done more to advance our cause than just about anything anyone else has done in the past several decades. That's because until his article came out, the mainstream was basically ignoring all of us … EU, PC or whatever. All the conferences Thunderbolts has held over the years on EU haven't moved the belief meter of the public. They've been completely ignored by the mainstream astrophysics community and more important the mainstream media that informs the taxpaying public about what's what ... what to believe.

But this brief moment in time has them worried. They are not ignoring Lerner. They are concerned about what he might convince the public to believe … which is why Lerner needs to be supported by all of us. We should all be pushing the themes of his latest article. Which is why I'm disappointed that on this forum, which claims to be "the voice" of the electric universe community, only you, Cargo and jackpokie have been interested enough to post something ... anything. One thing I can say for certain. Lerner has persisted and he’s found ways, over and over, to poke his mainstream Big Bang Universe opponents in the gut.

Now in contrast, everyone here made a big deal about Safire, but I see no evidence that Safire is still even advocating for us. They’ve left the playing field. They’re off investigating their own way of making money, not battling for the cause, like Lerner. We need to respect that, and give him ... give each of us, for that matter … be we EU, PC or PU ... a little slack in terms of the details of what we believe. Because it's not the details that matter at this point.
jacmac wrote: Tue Aug 30, 2022 2:03 pm He is the president and chief scientist of LPPFUSION.
https://www.lppfusion.com/team/
I have read his book, The Big Bang Never Happened.
In it, he makes statements against the EU
which I cannot remember exactly right now.
Yes, Lerner believes in fusion and has been working on turning his theory into something practical for a long time. That’s more than most EU (if you insist on drawing a difference) proponents have been doing. They've remained in their ivory towers, not even wanting to talk about the real reasons why our way of seeing the universe has gained so little traction amongst the public. Even this website prohibits doing that. And while Lerner has business interests, he hasn't forgotten the fight ... like those at Safire apparently have done.

And I read his book too. Keep in mind, that book came out in 1991, before there even was an Electric Universe community, per se. Sure, Jurgen's came out about the Electric Sun in the late 70s, but it was VERY controversial (and still is). Had Lerner made that the topic of his book, the mainstream would have just ignored him. He picked a topic and thesis they couldn't ignore.

And this website, which claims to speak for the EU community, wasn’t even in existence until 2004. In 2004, Lerner was poking the mainstream giant and getting far more attention than this website because he was still focused like a laser beam at the heart of what they now believe ... the Big Bang. I'm referring to that one letter he published, signed by 35 big name physicists, concerning the Big Bang. And he still is getting more attention than this website as evidence by all the mainstream scientists and *science communicators* that are attacking him for one little tiny article that got published.
And I'll probably have more comments about those attacking him in future posts. So stick around.

Finally, it's hard to know what you're referring to in his book that is against the EU since "Electric Universe" isn't listed in the Index. There's LOTS about electricity ... but nothing about "Electric Universe". My recollection is there was very little about the way the sun works, which seems to be your big complaint about what Lerner believes. But in his defense, even today, he says very little about the sun other than that fusion is it's source of energy. He doesn't say where it occurs. And I'm not even sure he believes the way he's now trying to create fusion in the lab is the way the sun does it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest