/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14764169
Creationists are obliterated
Existence and the universe is infinite and eternal, kek

>>14764169
>Official Big Bang Theory status: Debunked
Sorry chuds

>>14764169
>no link

>>14764169
NOOOO MY THEORIES!!! MUH ELEGANT MATH!!

bullshit

>Hey goys, we were just joking about the cosmological constant, Einstein is still the smartest person of all time and the king of all scientists

>>14764169
Wow this really is low tier click bait

big bang enthusiasts are no better than alchemists who are deluded in their proclamations of ultimate answers

>>14764169
metaphysically speaking, that means ragnarok will be coming up soon

>>14764169
sensationalist journalism

>>14764196
>>14764204
>>14764242
>>14764292
The amount of cope is unreal
You'll have to let go of your outdated hypotheses someday, everyone do, even if it hurts

>>14764250
cosmology isn't science, cosmology has no disprovables, no repeatable experiments. its just a bunch of baseless conjecture from loudmouth blowhards with personality disorders and daddy issues

>>14764292
It's not though

the author, who is self published because journals won't publish his papers, is saying that the JWST images are proving the big bang theory is incorrect because the galaxies are too small, numerous, intact, and stars in them are too old for the big bang theory to be true.

he says that the observed size of the galaxies hasn't increased over distance because space itself is not expanding, they appear small because they are just normal sized galaxies at that distance

he says that these galaxies are too numerous to have appeared from the big bang only 300m years prior

he says they are too intact - the theory that they would be tiny dense galaxies all colliding into each other and breaking into pieces eventually forming larger galaxies is proven wrong, they're all perfectly formed normal looking galaxies

he says the stars in these galaxies indicate billion year old star formation, not 300 million year old star formation


The expansion of space isn't real, light just 'gets tired' travelling through space, causing redshift.

>>14764382
Agreed. Cosmology doesn't lend itself easy to falsifiable experiments

>>14764407
bro i said all that shit and more last year on my blog smdh

>>14764169
Scratch that.

JWST just has a faulty sensor and delivers wrong wavelengths for dim objects. It was made in the US, so it's obviously shit.

>>14764407
>he says that the observed size of the galaxies hasn't increased
There is size evolution and angular size effects. It's not required that galaxies appear bigger. That's just a straman.
>he says that these galaxies are too numerous to have appeared from the big bang only 300m years prior
He claims, without any substantial argument. A giant logical leap.
>he says they are too intact
By simply guessing. The paper he quotes doesn't compare to any models. He just asserts the disks are too smooth for the big bang.
>he says the stars in these galaxies indicate billion year old star formation, not 300 million year old star formation
He won't even cite the data here. These galaxies are only candidates anyway.

There's a reason brain-diarrhoea like this wouldn't get into a journal.

A non-expanding universe (or one whose expansion does not accelerate) with redshift proportional to distance is what I supposed in my first paper in 2009. This paper is called SCP-001 now.
https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-001

The science has changed

Debunked

Mostly false

>>14764189
Nothing in the Qur'an about no Big Bang, pajeesh.

The universe wasn't created...
When will you creationist faggots learn?

>>14764510
who drew your tranime then weebshit?

>>14764169
bet you havent even read past the headline

>>14764169
>officially
source?
everyone just seems to assume this must be true

>>14764169
from the authors of this articles wikipedia:
>Eric J. Lerner (born May 31, 1947) is an American popular science writer, and independent plasma researcher.[2] He wrote the 1991 book The Big Bang Never Happened, which advocates Hannes Alfvén's plasma cosmology instead of the Big Bang theory. He is founder, president, and chief scientist of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc.[3][4]
absolute state of science journalism

>>14764169
>The Big Bang was a big fat fraud all along

yeah, i already knew that like 40 years ago

>>14764169
It's so laughable how every so many decades the super brain geniuses are proven wrong. Then they expect everyone to forget that they basically pulled some bullshit out of their asses and waved it around as fact for so long while sniffing their own farts.
>But for real this time we 100% know what's true, not like last time, that was just a theory...but to be fair this new idea is also just a theory, but for sure we are right now. Just give us more money and respect neither of which we've earned in any real way and if you question any of the fresh bullshit we've feed you here are some big vocabulary words and complex math to confuse you and convince you I'm way smarter than you and thus must be correct.

>>14764169
>The Big Bang was officially disproven.
Sad,was a funny time to see scientist meddling with hyperspace necessities.

>>14764652
"the big bang" is a blatant attempt at an atheistic soience rewrite of the book of genesis, it was never intended to be taken seriously be people who aren't utter lackwits to begin with

>>14764196
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckbjNIv0gmM

>>14764563
Sounds like he's on the forefront of real astrophysics to me anon. As the dark matter model collapses, plasma physics fills the void. Alfven was right.

>>14765316
Not a single thing of your comment makes any sense es are sense whatsoever.

>>14764416
link your blog faggot

>>14765277
What has that to do with James Webb images?

So what's the consensus right now? Is the universe infinitely old or what?

>>14766498
Well now that one schizo has stated big bang to be false I guess it's infinitely old universe now lmao

>>14766512
Honestly the universe being eternal is so much more logical than this quirk of people wanting everything to "have been made" or a "creator" whatsoever

>>14765157
>"the big bang" is a blatant attempt at an atheistic soience
I thought it was a Catholic who coined the term.

I wish we had a /popsci/ board

>>14765014
You’re still a schizo, anon.

>>14768119
>t. ifls popsoi faggot

Well I hope this comes to nothing
The Big Bang has been fundamental to my understanding of existence for the past decade of my life, without it you have a terrifying anarchy and uncertainty
With the Big Bang you have certainty because God clearly created the universe
What is there if that didn't happen?
A terrifying infinity

>>14765277
The video says that he just don't know, thank you for wasting my time

>>14765909
>any sense es are sense
Did you have a stroke anon? Are you alright?

>>14764169
>all these things getting debunked
>after all the children have been taught this in school
>as fucking fact 100% soinc
Did we just teach a generation of obsolete retards?

>>14764189
>Existence and the universe is infinite and eternal, kek
>nothing known in the universe is infinite and eternal but the universe is because

>>14768394
Maybe if your school didn't teach you the difference between a theory and a law

>>14764516
That's not anime

>>14768355
if we weren't so religiously minded then we wouldn't accept that the oldest light we can see in all directions must be from shortly after the creation of the universe
it's more likely that we aren't so special and the universe isn't so neatly tuned to our creation stories.

Lerner's recent introductory video
>The Big Bang Never Happened
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlFpq49Ri8Y

>all the joy that creationists are wrong
Barry Setterfield says Hi

>>14764407
>the author, who is self published because journals won't publish his papers
aaand dropped

>>14769274
Appeal to authority much

>>14769278
>One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.
So, in that sense, has the author proven their contentions?

>>14769315
How do I find that out?

>>14769274
Lerner is published in journals
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/477/3/3185/4951333?login=false

>>14764470
>The paper he quotes doesn't compare to any models.
He makes a comparison to models here:
https://youtu.be/eUv4vceKuIg?t=447

Billion year old elliptical galaxy discoverd half a billion years after the big bang.

>>14769343
At 10 mins:
https://youtu.be/eUv4vceKuIg?t=599

>>14768355
God could have just as easily created an infinite eternal universe as one with a beginning, and if he didn't, an eternal universe is more likely to have itself created a god that then creates other forms of life.

>>14769238
What really happened.

>>14769346
How hard will cosmologists slam their heads against their desk if the big bang turns out to be false?

>>14769278
If every single journal rejects your work, then there must a be reason, often involving schizophrenia

>>14769337
>arxiv

>>14769366
They'll continue paycheck stealing with some other made up unfalsifiable theory while denigrating real scientists work like
>>14769378

>>14769346
This guys whitepilled me on science. If the bigbang delusion only lasted 20 years then its not too long of a time. In my head it was more like 100 years.
Future generations wont curse us for getting stuck for a mere 20 years.

>>14764326
yeah, once there's some reason to declare them outdated and let go of them

>>14764169
BBT is a silly hypothesis that mitwits take as fact. Taking BBT as an undeniable fact is the most unscientific thing to go mainstream since the lobotomy.
https://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/

>>14764169
>>14764189
>>14764191
>>14764196
>>14764201
It's physically impossible to measure anything older than CMB. Think for yourselves and stop replying to bait.

>>14769536
>think for yourself by thinking like me

>>14764169
>The Big Bang was officially disproven.
Needing officials for that

>>14769238
this guy is a mega genius but it's too bad it comes with other weird attributes that make people ignore him

Big Bang is cope. Currently all theories are shoehorned to become compatible with the big bang even if they dont have evidence. If everyone has to stretch and bend theories to keep big bang alive, there is probably something wrong.

>>14770007
https://www.learner.org/series/a-private-universe/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4ZDyzPqnT4

>>14769536
James Webb is, billion year old elliptical galaxies, as determined by the age of their stars by light output, that exist 540 million years after the big bang>>14769346

Build a bigger telescope and look further back beyond the artiface of limits.

>>14769366
Steady state was more appealing to them because it defied the creationist implications of the big bang. A new generation of scientists would jump at the chance of eternalist cosmologoly.

The universe wasn't created
The universe wasn't created
The universe wasn't fucking created

Repeat it after me boys

>>14769379
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 477, Issue 3, July 2018, Pages 3185–3196.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/477/3/3185/4951333?login=false

>>14770025
The problem with Lerner's theory is he has no explanation for "tired light", if the universe isn't expanding then why is everything redshifted the further away you look? He argues that it's a function of distance, and that distance alone better explains it than expansion, but he admits he has no explanation for why light gets tired and shifts to red.

>>14770913
Arp postulated that it was a result of the formation process of quasars as they emerged from their parent galactic nuclei.

>>14770913
We have no idea what happens to light while traveling through space. They think there is invisible matter, so why not some medium that slows light? What if its a field that we cant detect because of gravity?

>>14770954
Dark speed bumps? Yeah if steady state was the dominant theory they'd explain it away with a fudge factor. But it's not, and either way it's still a huge problem.

>>14770985
It's more likely that the wavelength of emissions is merely a quality of quasars.

>>14764250
Kantbros... we won

>>14771056

Lmao Kant. Your IQ is <105

>>14764169
HECK' NEW RELIGION JUST DROPPED!

>>14769351
>God could have just as easily created an infinite eternal universe as one with a beginning
Something with no beginning is not created.

>>14770913
>if the universe isn't expanding then why is everything redshifted the further away you look?
It's an assumption that the light shifted red since it left it's source. Like if you had 50 people with air horns lined up over a mile the further ones would sound more quiet, you'd think the sound shifted down in decibels as it left the source to reach you. But what if you traveled to the source and they remained equally quiet as your original location? You'd realize they didn't actually shift, the sound remained constant over its journey and you merely assumed it shifted.
Obviously sound does not work this way and we know this because we can test it by traveling closer to the source. But we can't do this with distant galaxies.

>>14771241
>Something with no beginning is not created.
Some infinities are longer than others, and can therefore come before them.

>>14771056
Based

>>14771197
You Kant stand that you lost.

>>14771241
>Something with no beginning is not created.
God has no problem creating paradox and contradiction, your silly rules and semantic understanding of creation is as insulting as it is retarded.

>>14764652
What are you doing on 4channel, grandpa?

>>14771260
1 second ago can be segmented into an unaccountably infinite set, such as .5 seconds ago, .510... seconds ago, .5110.. seconds ago, .51110... seconds ego etc, (which is a larger or "longer" set than all seconds in past eternity) but that does not mean that 1 second period has existed eternally in the past. It had a beginning. If the set includes all seconds eternally in the past then it had no beginning and nothing can exist farther into the past than it hence nothing can create it because by definition it had no creation point.
You're implying God can create something that can't be created. Which is no different than saying "God can [logical error]"... the very sentence is gibberish no matter what you fill in the box bc it's logically impossible to logically prove the logically impossible is logically possible. You might as well slam random keys on the keyboard and say God can do that gibberish combination of characters.

>>14770883
What the am I reading for fucks sake, learn how to use punctuation

>>14771241
>Something with no beginning is not created.
But it can emanate ontologically, which was the Platonic conception of God that was adapted by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. If something is uncreated it is god, a de facto pantheism, especially as this uncreated universe is governed by uncreated laws that it gives itself consistant form.

>>14771361
>God has no problem creating paradox and contradiction, your silly rules and semantic understanding of creation is as insulting as it is retarded
Hebrews 6:18
>"... it is impossible for God to lie,"
Please bring your big boy IQ if you want ignorantly say I'm wrong while demonstrating you are clueless and have a child's understanding of these things.

>>14771241
If the light gets tired because it interacts with matter in between it's source and our reception then it would blur from the scattering as a result. There's no blurring, which is the fatal flaw with attempts to explain tired light by scattering.

>>14771435
What lie? A paradox is not a lie it is when two things that seem to conflict are both true.
Of course it is impossible to lie if anything can be true for you.

>>14771433
Well, feel free to call that a divinity if it helps you sleep at night, surely it doesn't seem something worth worshipping to me

>>14771433
>But it can emanate ontologically, which was the Platonic conception of God that was adapted by Christianity
Christianity have absolutely never adopted an emanationist view of God, that has practically been heretical at times. What on earth are you babbling about
>If something is uncreated it is god
God created time so your post is quite irrelevant on top of being grossly wrong

>>14771442
>What lie? A paradox is not a lie it is when two things that seem to conflict are both true.
God would not be creating a paradox in that case if things only "seem" to conflict, you're merely pointing out humans have misunderstandings due to limited knowlege. Eve being created as an adult is not a paradox because all other humans were/are created as embryos. It would have been a misunderstanding by Adam to think there is conflict between Eve being recently created yet she's already fully grown, not a paradox created by God.
Moreover, you said "contradiction" and happily left that out to move the goalpost I see. God creating a true contradiction would be him creating a lie.
>Of course it is impossible to lie if anything can be true for you.
Oh ok in that case God didn't need to put that in the Bible thanks for correcting him.
Moving past your brainlet understanding, it's impossible for God to lie due to his eternally consistent and unchanging nature, not bc a logical gotcha. You're wrong about that anyway, Jesus logically could have said the sky is green and not forced it to be green: hence he would have made a lie. Anything "can" be true for him does not mean anything "must" be true for him.

>>14771437
I did not claim I agree with any light tiring theories
>it interacts with matter in between it's source and our reception then it would blur from the scattering as a result
why is this the only reason light could tire? Doesn't theoretical physics "change the rulebook" so to speak sometimes and discover new ways things can happen that we did not anticipate before?

>>14771437
Does light require energy to move? If so, then it must lose energy to move from one location to another.

>>14771463
Christianity, and the others, adopted the Platonic emanationist god and added creation of the sensual world to it whilst preserving the emanationist elements of immance grounded laws, form, ethics, and beinghood. Grappling with this difficulty has being a perrenial issue of Abrahamic philosophy, most philosophers within the tradition adopted the Platonic view of an eternal universe and developed doctrines of two truths, one philosophic (eternal emanating universe) and one revealed (created universe) to various degrees. The rest of your post is a non-sequitur, if time is uncreated then it is god, if created the issue doesn't arise. The creator/creation distinction separates God's essence from his products, if uncreated it is God, if created it is not.

>>14771491
Contradiction is just a type of paradox where apparent opposites are both true.

>Oh ok in that case God didn't need to put that in the Bible thanks for correcting him.
The bible is poetry the things in there are also needed for their aesthetics, not just utility, its just another way of showing the will of god is truth and to lie is something outside of god's condition.

>eternally consistent and unchanging nature
God became man and died for man's sins, he has demonstrated massive potential for changing and to be a god that is everywhere while being a man that is somewhere specific is not a consistent state, it is a superposition of contradictory paradoxical states of being that god can easily maintain because he is not bound by your silly logical assumption and personal human experience.

>>14771491
>why is this the only reason light could tire? Doesn't theoretical physics "change the rulebook" so to speak sometimes and discover new ways things can happen that we did not anticipate before?
Do you have another? It's a weak position to merely posit that a mechanism may be found. The reason tired light is out of favour is a good mechanism hasn't been posited and the ones that were failed in empirical obervation. The author of the OP article admits he can't posit a mechanism for tired light.

>>14771501
>Contradiction is just a type of paradox where apparent opposites are both true.
Mystification, the resort of all philosophic failures.

>>14771507
Name-calling, the favored fallacy of midwits who clearly just lost the argument.

>>14771512
Mystification is a fallacy, not a name. You skewer yourself with your post.

>>14771516
Yet you didn't logically explain anything about it, how it applies, or why a god with infinite more experience and knowledge than man wouldn't be mystic, instead you used the term as an excuse to invoke name-calling which took up most of the post because you are seething about being wrong.

>>14764169
It always was disproven.

The SCIENTIFIC method is almost never used.
Meaning:
> you observe a natural phenomenon
> you have a dependent variable (the phenomeon) and a independent variable (the presumed cause of the phenomenon which you can manipulate)
> you have a hypothesis about the independent variable to be the cause of the phenomenon
> you conduct a experiment in which you change the variable
> you cunduct a valid control experiment under the same conditions without changing the variable in any or negligent way (eg because of experimental interference)
> the results of the experiment can now be interpreted
> either the X causes Y or X does not cause Y (which is the null hypothesis)
> a theory arises
> a scientific experiment must be falsifiable and therefore repeatable
> meaning, there must be a chance of reproducing the experiment
> and maybe getting a different result
> never repeated experiments are not considered "good"
> methology is everything

Explain to me how the "proved" the Big bang in the first place?
Which experiment did they conduct?
Which phenomenon did the "manipulate"? The big bang itself ?
How do they know what to observe if the event/phenomenon happened when nobody was there to observe?

There is nothing scientific outside the low earth orbit.
Its just looking at lights and interpreting shit.

>>14771499
>Christianity, and the others, adopted the Platonic emanationist god
You are supremely ignorant and make up such easily provable nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatio_ex_nihilo#Creatio_ex_nihilo:_the_creation_of_matter
>if created the issue doesn't arise
Duh. Time was created thus all your grossly wrong babbling is irrelevant bc there is no issue. I wasn't kidding when I said this the first time.
>uncreated it is God, if created it is not
ROFL God is the only uncreated entity. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
>>14771501
>Contradiction is just a type of paradox
All paradoxes have a contradiction you midwit.
God does not create paradoxes, you simply have limited understanding and call it a paradox out of ignorance. You fill up your gas tank and it says E the next morning after someone stole your car and drove it all night..did that person "create" a paradox? Of course not. You are just ignorant to all the facts.
>God became man and died for man's sins
Only correct thing you've said
>it is a superposition of contradictory paradoxical states
Omnipresence is not paradoxical. You are truly a midwit.

>>14771528
Reminds me how evolution is "proven", yet we cannot create simple life.

>>14771524
You're the only one name-calling, which in your own words is the calling-card of the midwit. Mystification is a fallacy because it can be applied at any stage to any problem by bracketing it off as a mystery. If appeal to mystery is a valid solution then why not apply it earlier and just say the universe is a mystery and leave it at that and be satisfied? Most would recognise that for the failure that it is, so why is not a failure to apply the same appeal to mystery higher up the chain of argument in a system when it comes to God and the relation to the universe? Mystification is a figleaf for philosophical failings.

>>14771531
>All paradoxes have a contradiction you midwit.
You are the one who acted like the terms aren't interchangeable, dummy, I just use different words for the same thing so as not to say paradox over and over.
>>14771491
>Moreover, you said "contradiction" and happily left that out to move the goalpost I see.

>God does not create paradoxes
Maybe your weak midwit god is limited in that way, but the god that is also man and created his own parents as described in the bible is certainly paradoxical and contradictory.

>Omnipresence is not paradoxical.
It is definitely a paradox to be both inside and outside of something since those two states contradict.

>>14771531
Creation ex nihilo was not well supported in the philosophical history of Christianity. It was a revealed theological truth, not a philosophic truth, which was the eternal universe of Plato. Reconciling the revealed truth to philosphical truth has been a perrenial problem within Christain, Islamic, and Jewish philosophy. If you're satified with wikipedia articles on the issue then it's probably not for you.

>>14771555
The universe is a mystery, god is just what happens when people attempt to personalize and anthropomorphize the universe and the bible contains numerous contradictions and specifically refers to god and his plans as a mystery in verses such as Ephesians 3:9 which has led to the cliche that God works in mysterious ways.
Yes once you start calling people names, there is really no point in trying to debate anymore and since name-calling is fun, why shouldn't I join in and call a clear name-calling loser like you a loser?

>>14771571
The only person name-calling is you. Your correct in that the revelation employs mystification, and again there is represents a failure. If appeal to mystery is valid then just call it mystery at the first instance and be done with it, if mystificaiton is valid then every problem can be answered at first instance with "it's a mystery" and there is objectively no need to go beyond that. If the universe is a mystery, and mystification is a valid argument to resolve a problem, then there is no need to appeal to god as a cause for the universe because the mysteriousness of the universe explains itself. If mystification is invalid to explain the universe, then it's not valid to use mystification higher on the chain of argument when you run into problems with God and simply declare that a mystery that by doing so have mystery satisfy the problem. Mystification is a fallacy and cop out for philosophic failings, as is running for an excuse of "you called me names" to exit a lost argument, especially when the only one to name call has been you.

>>14771562
Aquinas himself calls creation the "emanation of all being" as a way to resolve the clash of revealed truth vs philosophic truth:
https://aquinas101.thomisticinstitute.org/st-ia-q-45

>>14771582
No the name-calling started here
>>14771507
>philosophic failures

>Your correct
Ok and that makes you incorrect, hence all the fallacious seething.

I never invoke mysticism to explain the universe, I invoked the paradoxical nature of biblical god to explain how the bible doesn't have any problem with god or creation having contradicting qualities.

>>14771528
>The SCIENTIFIC method is almost never used.
It was never meant to be science. It's a sales story that answers question nobody can answer. Easily refuted, illogical, and requires blatant assumptions any flatearther would be ashamed of (or maybe proud to sold THAT bs to the idiots).
"Science" is only interested to hold a narrativ absurdity doesn't matter.

>>14769351
I don't understand why people never fathom the idea, that something just is and always was.

Is there any requirement to be a beginning anywhere?

The premise:
> everything has to have a beginning
> In a universe in which it is impossible to destroy or "remove" anything from existence
> is kinda cope to avoid the simple answer "we don't know what and why we are"

It doesn't satisfy you, but sticking to a premise which is unable to be proven because we cannot even "end" something.
We can disassemble complex structures but thats it.
> stone to sand
> to dust to atoms
> to protons electrons and neutrons
> to sub matter particles (spinions, quarks) which disperses and somehow create new matter because of quantum events
> everything is a closed system
> nothing ever is truly destroyed
> only transmutated into energy or other sub matter particles
> everything stays conserved

AND STILL we want a "beginning" even though we could not even create a "end" of anything.
Turning matter or energy into void is not possible. We are unable to create a absolute void.
Why do there need to be a "beginning" if we are unable to prove a "end" to the fundamental building blocks of our existence.

>>14766498
>>14766512
>>14766523
That's just impossible though, surly it couldn't have been here forever, there must have been a beginning, the universe having no beginning is a paradox, surly there is a point where it started.

>>14764510
If the universe wasn’t created then where did it come from huh?

>>14764169
> We need to imitate nature, not try to fight it. We atLPPFusionhave been applying that knowledge concretely to the development of a cheap, clean and unlimited source of energy that can entirely replace fossil fuels starting in this decade.

>>14764326
>You'll have to let go of your outdated hypotheses someday, everyone do, even if it hurts
Relativity is next. Lemaitre's math and analysis was based on it.

>>14769346
>>14770883
>>14769419


This is his "1 Gyr Impossibly old early galaxy"? Fucking lol. I knew he was full of shit but this takes the biscuit.
He's not even fitting the data, he's just putting some lines together that he has picked. Naturally he has deleted the error bars and assumed the unconfirmed redshift is correct. All of his "models" are clearly inconsistent with the data.
If you want to seriously show a galaxy requires 1 Gyr stars you have to actually do some fitting. Show that only models with impossibly early stellar populations provide acceptable fits. Pic related is one such fit of a high redshift galaxy. One can see that there are larger uncertainties and the parameters are correlated. You cannot just ignore this intrinsic uncertainties and decide how old a galaxy is. One also can't just pretend emission lines don't exist, at that redshift [OIII] is in the red-most filter, models need to include it.
Also the LePhare SED model clearly provides a much better fit than any of Lerner's but typically these models require the ages to be less than the age of the universe.
This is crack-head astronomy. Naturally he hasn't put this in a paper because it's fucking abysmal. And I see he is still using Excel, the cherry on top of the steaming turd.

>>14771893
*Cough* *Cough* Dark matter might exist outside of space-time *Cough* *Cough*

>>14769343
That's not even the same point as I was referring to. And plotting some random uncited SEDs does not support his claim at all. The LaPhare fit clearly shows the UV slope of that galaxy is very blue. It cannot be a passive elliptical galaxy. That is fucking stupid.

>>14771560
>You are the one who acted like the terms aren't interchangeable, dummy, I just use different words for the same thing so as not to say paradox over and over.
All paradoxes involve a contradiction. You made no point in saying that, unless your point was to further display your ignorance.
>but the god that is also man and created his own parents as described in the bible is certainly paradoxical and contradictory
A paradox is always contradictory you captain redundant midwit. It's not a paradox just because you are too stupid to understand it. Children understand how it works.
>It is definitely a paradox to be both inside and outside of something since those two states contradict
ROFL no. A 4 dimensional being easily can be in two places at once. Again this isn't a difficult idea at all. Pic related is a time traveling children's movie showing just one way this easily works. Notice how he's inside and outside the car at the same time hahaha!!! No paradox at all bc if we agree on the premises of that situation it's blatantly easy to understand how it happened.
You'll probably complain its not he "same" person inside and outside the car since one is older, however that argument is easily defeated. Since God is omnipotent, omniscient, doesn't age, and his nature is unchanging there would be no difference between him being in two parts both inside the car and outside at the same time. Ergo, he's the same God in two places at once. Easy as pie to understand. No paradox whatsoever.
>>14771562
>Creation ex nihilo was not well supported in the philosophical history of Christianity
Again you are supremely ignorant. 2 Macabees is accepted by the catholic church and blatantly verbatim affirms creation ex nihilo. You are definitively wrong.
There is no point to engage you since you still blatantly stonewall over my claim/fact Christians believe God created time that I have now said TWICE and you ignorantly ignore. Your pedantic ignorance is a waste of time.

>>14771363
keepin' an eye on you little shits.
now stop running in the house!
dont touch that!
quiet down in there !

Find out who you were in a past life!!

Powerful Guided Past Life Regression
https://youtu.be/PjUpseWz_Co

Akashic Records Guided Meditation | How to Access the Book of Life | Past Life
https://youtu.be/n_rx4pGsf8E

>>14771433
Plato's god was the demiurge, not the Form of the Good. Of course, abrahamists will disagree because they are uncomfortable with the idea that the good is above god, but still want to appropriate greek philosophers.

>>14771787
Infinity doesn't exist, or may not exist in our reality.

>>14764169
your mum and I big banged last night

>>14771534
Countless lab experiments show how natural selection affects the mutation of bacteria

Big Bang is not scientific. If you cannot replicate it in your lab it is not science.

>>14773761
>Countless lab experiments show how natural selection
lab experiments are not natural
>natural selection affects the mutation of bacteria
Natural selection affects the reproductive success differential of mutations, not the mutations themselves. No lab has ever tried to prove nat selection affects the mutations, like the amount or rate of them or types of them, because that would be pointless.

>>14764519
no, most people don't assume any such thing

it's just a clickbait news article, you shouldn't be assuming anything from it other than "there might be some news on this topic that i could look into"

>>14773907
Well yeah, it's history. You can replicate observations.

>>14774059
>lab experiments are not natural
So? Things work the same way in a lab and in the wild, otherwise all experiments would be pointless.

>>14771528
Midwit take on science. The "scientific method" is an oversimplification taught to high schoolers.
If we took that definition as dogma then it would discredit not only all astronomy, but all paleontology, meteorology, climatology, most geology, and pretty much any other science that attempts to study complex systems including much of biology, and almost all of the human sciences.

>>14774328
There are infinite numbers of models able to explain observations from a nonmanipulable system.

Serious question looking for some input, if you could technically get in front of the "bow wave" of the expanding universe couldn't you technically witness the birth of the universe, the information would technically be there. We currently visualize light from stars that may be long gone now, the info should be at the edges of the expanding universe. Not sure what physics would be present outside of that zone though. Would you even be able to perceive it.

>>14764169
Mathbros, we get to laugh at physicists' lack of rigor again. Today, I think I'm going to revisit the chain of inferences that led to the Big Bang theory so that I can laugh at such scatter-brained logic.

i'm too stupid to understand most of this, but this is actually blowing my mind. i know it was "just a theory" but it was touted around like fact. we learned this shit in school, and now it turned out to be false.
makes me wonder what else i've been taught that isn't true.

>>14764169
Kek if the universe is infinite and we are the only life that has emerged in that infinity then I guess we know what that means

>>14771956
Dunno. More importantly, where is it going?

>>14774310
>Things work the same way in a lab and in the wild
hahahahahaha no. Absolutely no.
>otherwise all experiments would be pointless
Ridiculous hyperbole. All regarding a "simulation" of natural selection or natural conditions are, not all experiments period. The long term ecoli experiment of does not mimic nature at all and is thus pointless. They discovered a citrate utilizing gene mutation that is already present in nature. 30 years and they learned nothing new. That is a pointless experiment in every sense of the word.
The Miller Urey experiment in absolutely no way simulated a "primordial earth" either. They used highly refined/pure chemicals created in a factory and those concentrations are simply not possible in nature. They did not prove those amno acids can occur in nature, at all. That's not technically natural selection but it's a similar idea in illustrating that lab conditions are simply not the same as nature, thus natural selection experiments in a lab are in fact pointless.

>>14776148
unironically true tho'
sucks to be you, catgirl SF enjoyer

Fucking hell not an actual source yet

How the fuck would the universe being eternal even work with thermodynamics?

Shouldn’t everything just be a formless mass of equal-temperature nothing right now if the universe is infinitely old?

what does this mean for those of us who are dumb and can't comprehend? universe is eternal?

That's what I get for not checking the catalog.... I made >>14776647 just a few short minutes ago. I suppose I'll copy over.

Since there are a number of articles being posted suggesting that the James Webb Space Telescope has "disproved" the Big Bang Theory, I thought it worthwhile to start a thread about it.

https://principia-scientific.com/do-james-webb-telescope-images-disprove-the-big-bang-theory/

>So we were confident the JWST would show the same thing—which it already has, for galaxies having redshifts as high as 12. Put another way, the galaxies that the JWST shows are just the same size as the galaxies near to us, if it is assumed that the universe is not expanding and redshift is proportional to distance.

https://thepulse.one/2022/08/17/new-james-webb-data-suggests-thebig-bang-may-have-never-happened-according-to-some/

>Many of these new images show redshifts higher than ever seen before, which would place some of them approximately 250 million years before the Big Bang.

Here's something that's an oldie but a goodie too, Malcom Bowden, a Christian who believes in the Geocentric model of the Universe, attempts to disprove the Big Bang Theory in 2010. Notice his arguments on Redshift.

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

Quite an interesting thing, yes? If the Big Bang Theory is disproved, Scientific Dogma that has existed unquestioned since the 1970's is suddenly shattered and a new theory of the origins of the universe must be established. What are your thoughts, /sci/?

>>14764407
This guy gets it. Why am I trying to find intelligent discussion on 4chan? I thought /sci/ was a better board than to believe the pop-articles.

>>14776546
It just works

>>14764421
>Is our theory incorrect? No it can't be, it must be the sensor.

>>14776661
It's just faster-than-light neutrinos or cold fusion again.

>>14764419

Yeah right. Recalibrate JWST to the broken cosmic ladder. LOL!

>>14776546
>How the fuck would the universe being eternal even work with thermodynamics?
Things heat up, photons push them apart, things cool down, gravity pulls them back together. Pressure builds, they heat up, photos push them apart, they spread out, cool down as the photon density decreases, they fall back together.

>>14776661
If the Big Bang Theory is disproved, the peer review mechanism itself will be questioned. This is why it is hard for many scientists to barely fathom this idea, no matter how valid it is (or isn't). Hopefully science evolves positively from such insight so that we can discover truth for the sake of it.

>>14771429
You and him both, goddamn

>>14777130
That whole thing has a start

>>14777469
Kek, fair enough
I was so irrationally angry that I didn't pay attention to what I was writing myself

Why are we using any data from the James Webb telescope at all? The name is a painful reminder of the rampant homophobia that used to exist in the astrophysics community and it should not reflect the current values of our understanding of science and the world around us. If we really want to understand the universe from the most objective perspective we need to make this process more inclusive to LGBTQ+ and BIPOC scientists and artists.

>>14776069
>me wonder what else i've been taught that isn't true
everything lol

i'll believe the words of astrophysicist and IDW adjacent dr brian keating over some random atheist tyvm

>>14779166
>believe
So, you don't care about truth?

>>14776069
>still using simplified binaries like "theory vs fact"
are you still in middle school? is one of your courses just called "science"?

Picrel are the "scientists" when they realize that all of their so-called hardwork and hypothesises over the years have been proven wrong and now they're starting to go schizo and dogmatic

We must retvrn.

>>14778487
>Homophobia
All of a sudden I love the James Webb telescope you sure his lame name want based?

>>14764169
From the same dude that that pushes Electric Universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9q-v4lBGuw

>>14764169
Mind equals blown. A good read.

>>14764169
Link or just a yellow press faggot

>>14776148
it certainly doesn't hurt the theist case.

cosmology is inherently infalsifiable, it can neither be proven nor disproven.

>>14779315
Penis = blown. A gay deed.

>>14780629
Depends on the kind of theist. Have you forgotten that like 40% of 'Murica thinks the earth is like 6,000 years old?