/sci/ - Science & Math

Honestly, I'm quite excited for this topic. My studies do not have anything to do, for the most part, with astronomy, but I find the shattering of old theories upon the arrival of new discoveries incredibly interesting, I hope this topic doesn't get drowned in ''don't be a fucking moron'' counterarguments and is given some actual thought.

>>14776647
It's exciting. I never expected the big bang of all things to be disproven

I still don't believe it

>>14776675
It won’t be, unfortunately
My big brain idea is to dump all Human Resources into an AI with access to databases of all known scientific knowledge, and then see what type of universe model it spits out. If it needs more data then we focus on collecting more data in specific ways needed to “solve” the universe.

>>14776647
last i heard, and this could be outdated because it was as of hubble not webb, but with the blackest bit of space being filled with galaxies when zoomed in on they had moved to an infinite "foam" view of the universe where the "big bang" was just a relatively local event in an infinity of big bangs and stuff.

Why do you idiots always fall for the clickbait titles?

Has the Big Bang Theory been disproved? Nope.
Will some parameters need tweaking? Probably.

>>14776693
Or maybe space is a lie and anything related to it a complete fabrication.
But it's better to vaccinate yourself, just to be sure.

>>14776700
so many "parameters" that it would be better to scrap it and think of something else.

>>14776647
>What are your thoughts, /sci/?
A blatant idiotic assumption. Flatearthers level is never a theory. Midwits and normaltards will see this soon because science has lost any credibility and with the disappearing authority of this the ass of power licking academic dwarfs questions arise.

>>14776716
You said a whole lot of nothing. Have you ever considered not posting unless you have something to say?

So it's older than we thought, and/or expanding more slowly than we thought - neither of these things outright disproves the Big Bang, right?

>>14776724
It's not expanding at all.

>>14776724
We need moar data. If it's true, then we'll see other scientists calling out the big bang as a fraud. Right now it's too early to say...

>>14776722
>You said a whole lot of nothing. Have you ever considered not posting unless you have something to say?
You dumb posting is way more insubstantial. If you don't like what i say or believe in thids bullshit go to the church and simply shut up.

>>14776725
>We need moar data
Acquiring data is science.Usually a boring job with stars. BigBang is just marketing.

>>14776675
It is exciting. I think some people suffer from overconfidence, and a shakeup is good. There are plenty of fields that need a new angle (particle physics as well). There is much more to learn than has been figured out I believe.

>>14776700
>Why do you idiots always fall for the clickbait titles?

Do you honestly think any more than 5% of the people who post on this board have a degree in a science, let alone a relevant field to this particular topic?

>>14776752
i have 4inches of degress in ur mum

>>14776754

That's it?

>>14776752
I don't know where this "le 4chan dumb" meme came from when it's been proven time and time again that the posters on here are on average far smarter than other online communities.
I guess whatever helps you feel better about yourself.

>>14776647
Multiple articles all from the same guy.

It's not near as clear cut. Check https://www.science.org/content/article/webb-telescope-reveals-unpredicted-bounty-bright-galaxies-early-universe for a less hype oriented summary.

>>14776766
>I don't know where this "le 4chan dumb" meme came from

Then you're exactly as dumb as everyone expects.

>>14776766
>it's been proven time and time again that the posters on here are on average far smarter than other online communities.

Where's the peer-reviewed study? :)

>>14776768
>Multiple articles all from the same guy.

People on here will latch onto any contrarian perspective they can find even if it came from a literal preschooler.

>>14776776
Physics needs a little contrarianism given how much of a failure string theory and SUSY ended up being.

>>14776768
What are you on about? It literally says the exact same thing the previous article said, but with a different headline. Do you even read these articles before you post them?

Astrophysics fag here. I can’t say much but over here at retard HQ we are testing new models using another phenomenon we’re calling “red matter” it’s like dark matter but red

>>14776647
I hope Pierre-Marie Robitaille will live to see his work vindicated.

>>14776724
>it's older than we thought
Infinitely older, in fact.

>>14776752
>Do you honestly think any more than 5% of the people who post on this board have a degree in a science, let alone a relevant field to this particular topic?
I have a degree in physics and still never took an astronomy class. I don't let it stop me from shitposting though.

>>14776689
In order to train an AI to do this you would need multiple solved universes to test its modelling abilities, which is an impossibility

>>14776824
Technically not, but anons proposed idea is far beyond our current ai abilities

>>14776771
>no you are the dumb dumb!!
>where is your peer review study during a replication crisis???
>even if you had a study I would just dismiss it as not enough anyway
>check mate Christians!!!

pretty exciting stuff

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.11558.pdf

>>14776803

its literal cgi, looks like it was made in windows paint by a 5th grader

>>14776803
It's aether, isn't it?

>>14776808
Yeah he's getting more and more right every moment.

>>14777185
Of course it is.

No it's not interesting, it's shitty science journalism. Is there a paper to base these claims on? No.

Lerner's arguments are shitty and full of holes. The papers he cites don't make these claims, so he has to plug in the gaps with huge leaps of illogic.
>There are too many massive galaxies, there is no way these can form so quickly.
One can only make a claim like this if you believe galaxy formation is solved. It's not, and that's why the papers don't make these claims.
Secondly these galaxies are unconfirmed and the methods to estimate their masses make lots of assumptions which may not hold (e.g. what type of stars dominate the galaxy). The reason Lerner never talks about the fact these are preliminary results is because they suit his confirmation bias.
>There is a galaxy with an age older than the universe
Of course he doesn't cite this paper or quote the uncertainty. Note again these objects are candidates and sometimes several properties (redshift, mass, star formation rate, star formation history) are all fit from 3 or 4 coarse flux values. There are huge uncertainties, and the parameters are correlated. Even with Gaussian noise you will end up with impossibly early galaxies.
As it happens Lerner is even more full of shit than I realised. This claim of an impossibly early galaxy comes from him alone. It is total crap: >>14772997
It also turns out that galaxy was dropped as possibly being high redshift at all with improved calibrations.
>Disks too smooth
The paper he's citing didn't even compare to any models. Lerner falsely claims the paper sees 10 times as many disks as models require, which is a lie. It actually says the fraction of disks is 10 times higher than measured by Hubble. Anyone making a serious argument has no excuse for lying.

And check the fucking catalog. There are so many of shitty threads already.

I'm glad I pursued math and not physics. Mathematicians have their problems, but it's amazing how sloppy the reasoning of physicists can be. Who hasn't had the (dis)pleasure of looking at physicists jump to conclusions from the results of experiments and thinking "What! It doesn't necessarily mean that! I can think of a bunch of alternative explanations!"

>>14776647
SOIENCE LADS: SCIENCE IS ALLOWED TO BE WRONG BECAUSE IT'S EVOLVING TOWARD THE TRUTH. THIS IS A GOOD THING.

ALSO SOIENCE LADS: X IS ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC FACT, YOU DUMBASS. YOU SHOULD BE DEPLATFORMED FOR MISINFORMATION AND THROWN INTO A GULAG FOR NOT TRUSTING THE SCIENCE.

>>14776949
Galaxies at 24.7z
>Using the ERO dataset on SMACS 0723-23, we searched for objects dropping out from F150W, F200W and F227W. One expects that these dropouts correspond to candidate galaxies at z ≈ 12.7, 17.3, and 24.7, respectively.

>>14776758
It might not be long, but it's really thin

>>14776771
90% of the posters here have at least a bachelors and are at least 2 standard deviations above the mean in intelligence.

>>14777488
Nope, read the paper. None of their galaxies are total dropouts in F277W. So they can't be that high redshift. All of their z~20 have lower redshift solutions.
F227W is a typo, there is no such filter. A demonstration of the quality of this paper.
Their highest confidence z~20 candidate is also more plausibly a low redshift galaxy using newer calibrations:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.11217

>>14777129
How is this bad? The first equation is actually false, while the second equation is true. It is correct to add the "dark number" in that case.

>>14776675
BBT and expanding universe is a very "Emperor's New Clothes" situation. You can publish that you can see the emperor's left foot. You can publish that you can see his right shoulder. You can publish that you can see his butt. But you can't publish a summary that he appears to have no clothes. And heaven forbid you go one step further and draw inferences about the wonderfulness of his tailor that caused all to claim the emperor to be beautifully clothed in the first place.

>>14776700
>Will some parameters need tweaking? Probably.
Too many parameters need too much tweaking and those parameters are required to stick within a certain range for other experiments and discoveries to be valid.

>>14777958
Will this new discovery discredit 50 years of Big Bang? How long will it take to unravel.

>>14777214
>One can only make a claim like this if you believe galaxy formation is solved. It's not
Apparently we just need to figure out how gigantic, mature galaxies can instantly form seconds after the big bang and modern cosmology will be saved.

I'm looking forward to the ensuing shitfest as the "unexpected" data keeps rolling in.

>>14777253
Mathematicians are exactly what led physics into the hole it's in today. They believe that just because an equation happens to be provable mathematically, that it corresponds to how the physical universe works. Mathematicians never question their assumptions because in math you never have to. You just invent some axioms and everything else is provable.

Mathematicians are autists with no critical thinking.

>>14779180
Always funny when someone is talking to a theoretical physicist and they mention string theory has no predictive power. The theorist usually responds with ambivalence.

Modern theoretical physics feels like mathematicians larping as physicists.

>>14776647
>If the Big Bang Theory is disproved, Scientific Dogma that has existed unquestioned since the 1970's is suddenly shattered

How would an idea that was disproven and discarded in only 50 years be "dogma"?

I still dont believe it, the big bang happened, maybe its just older than what we thought or something

>>14776949
Holy shit, didn't know we could go that deep. This paper was only talking about a redshift of 8: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.09428.pdf

>>14779532
Lerner's cosmologocial timeline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlFpq49Ri8Y

>>14776949
Is it possible that we're mis-using the doppler effect to infer age?

>>14779639
You would have to disprove the expanding universe theory. Galaxies accelerate away from each other, so if they are going faster, they're probably farther away

>>14779639
>>14779683
And have been accelerating for longer, so older

>>14777852

> the second equation is true

you wish that the second equation is true.

the second equation is merely a wish.

wishing doesn't make it so.

see first equation for the true state of reality.

>>14776689
China is currently working on this

>for the world is hollow and I have touched the sky
Could the JWST be observing the actual boundary of the universe? Perhaps it's just seeing the other side of the universe from the back side. Maybe that's why the red shifts don't make sense. Yes I'm retarded but who knows?

>>14776647
Nope

More than anything, doesn't this imply that the universe is a lot bigger than we think?

If galaxies are fully formed 13.6 billion light years out, for that to happen those galaxies aren't the earliest ones. The earliest one must be much further out.

But how does this fit in with the cosmic radiation background?

Isn't that what we have used to measure the amount of time since the big bang?

>>14781101
>CMBG
The whole premise that we know what the CMBG even means is ridiculous. We have no idea why it looks the way it does, so instead they just tried to fit it into existing models.

The big bang theory is the epitome of moving the goalpost

>>14781139
>We have no idea why it looks the way it does, so instead they just tried to fit it into existing models.
Wrong. The existence of the CMB, it's precise blackbody spectrum and the statistics of its angular anisotropies were all predicted before the measurements were made.

>>14776647
The big bang has never been proven in the first place and is only an assumption based on the current information we have, so arguing that it was "disproven" is completely pointless, the new data would just change the predictions of the previous theory to match current information until we have enough information to provide a definitive answer to the nature of the beginning of the universe, which will never happen, so why blow this shit out of proportion in the first place, it's retarded.

>>14781311
Predicting qualities of something doesn't mean you understand it.

>>14781324
How else do you validate a model of something to show you understand it? The strongest test is confirming quantitative predictions, which has happened over and over. And on the other hand all the alternative models which were hypothesised after the CMB was discovered have been ruled out. Saying "we have no ideal why it looks like that" when the same model which predicted it also predicted it would look like that.

>>14781343
>We predicted the motions of the moon and sun! The earth is clearly in the center. All other models have failed to predict, we know for sure that the Sun and Moon orbit the Earth!
You can make correct predictions without understanding something. Thats the entire history of science. You're just a retarded science (tm) cultist who follows approved consensus instead of considering your dogma could be wrong. You are the geocentrists of 21st century.

>>14781369
>We predicted the motions of the moon and sun! The earth is clearly in the center. All other models have failed to predict, we know for sure that the Sun and Moon orbit the Earth!
Strawman. The geocentric model did not predict things a priori, unlike the features of the CMB. It certainly didn't make new novel predictions (e.g. the existence of the CMB).
>follows approved consensus instead of considering your dogma could be wrong.
It very well could be. Do you also consider that you may be wrong about the big bang?
None of this has anything to do with the point however, which is about evidence. Doesn't matter what one believes, successful quantitative predictions speak for themselves.

>>14779683
You've got it the wrong way around. The theory of expansion is used to explain the observation of redshift. The observed pheneonemon of redshift grounds the theory of expansion, not expansion-theory grounding the redshift-observation. If there were a plausible alternate theory to explain redshift it would replace (or compete with) the expansion theory that underpins the big bang theory.

>>14781101
The undeveloped idea in steady state theories is that CMB, and background radiation generally throughout the spectrum, is the scattered light of Olbers' paradox of an infinite universe.

>>14781392
>It certainly didn't make new novel predictions (e.g. the existence of the CMB).
The prior theory may provide a hermeneutic that determines the observation and its interpretation, and in doing so "poison the well" of both alternate observations or interpretations. The obervation can be wrongly seen as a 'verification' of the theory that predicted it to the exclusion of alternative explanations, and can wrongly give 'satisfaction' that the phenomenon has been explained, terminating further inquiry and production of observations that may further elucidate the phenomenon.

Observations may be made only because of the theory, because the theory suggests they will be of merit, discounting or limiting other potential observations because they are not thought to be theoretically interesting, and the interpretation of the observation may be determined by the theory to the exclusion of other interpretations; the theory can poison the well of alternate interptations and fuller or alterate observation of the phenomenon at hand or releated phenomena.

>>14776700
>Will some parameters need tweaking? Probably.
More surely. One of them are the origin of the forces that accelerate matter over lightspeed and the brake to return out of hyperraum. Alternatively you can "prove" how it is possibel to look back in time to the point of origin. Please do not answer when you can't imagine this stupid thing and if, tell me why the universe is at any direction wider than the resolution of human instruments.

>>14781920
space is not a total vacuum, also dust clouds, nebulas, and such. also it turns out there are stars just about everywhere we look, that was the whole point for hubble and webb looking into the darkest spots of space they could and finding is wasn't quite so dark

Holy shit this thread. We're not going to throw out Big Bang Theory based on a few observations until those observations have proper explanations or another better theory comes along to replace it. We don't say 'uh oh, not all predictions of science work all the time, guess we'll go back to blood letting and voodoo magic'. Holy shit some of you people.

>>14782065
>Holy shit this thread. We're not going to throw out Big Bang
If you have an bullshit theory it doesn't help to say, muuh but we have nothing better. Outside academic "we don't know" is an usual and honest answer. Way better than idiotic and not disprovable hallucinations.

>>14781920
There are stars everywhere, we just dont see them because light gets weaker with distance. If you stay still and keep look at the same spot, you'd eventually receive enough light to make something out which is how space telescopes see extremely distant stars.

>>14782065
>We're not going to throw out Big Bang Theory
Too late. Bing Bang was already on its last legs anyway, every theory was being twisted to fit the big bang but its time to stop. Literally geocentrism 2.0

>>14782087
>>14782087
>There are stars everywhere, we just dont see them because light gets weaker with distance
Remember the redshift, hard to refute (just explanation looks a little like a lsd trip). Stars simply fall behind your "event horizon" because there is no way to see infrared with the human eye. JWST can do,

>>14776647
It didn't disprove the big bang theory, it just revealed that galaxies may have been forming a lot sooner after the big bang than previously thought.

>>14782095
>Bing Bang was already on its last legs anyway
Sure, but why. Methink it is a cultural thing, people believe in that bullshit more out of psychological or associative reasons. To make it simple over here they call it "Zeitgeist", wasn't that similar in english?

>>14782112
Redshift is different from inverse square law. We don't actually know why red shifts, we just assume it must be moving away because of "dark energy." Dark energy and dark matter are just more cope to force models in line with the big bang.

>>14782065
There is an alternate theory that pre-dates the big bang theory, steady state.

>>14782037
You're not understanding Olbers paradox. Having some stars anywhere you look isn't the problem, it's why isn't the sky uniformly bright, i.e. a star at *every* point. If the universe is infinite in time and space then there would need to be other mechanisms to explain light getting 'tired' to explain away Olbers paradox as well as redshift.

>>14782126
>it just revealed that galaxies may have been forming a lot sooner
Like before the big bang.

>>14782135
>Redshift is different from inverse square law
sure
>We don't actually know why red shifts
but an expanation
but the explanation of an expanding room with dark matter/energy sounds "a little" esoteric to me.

>>14782135
Expansion of space is a good explanation for redshift and underpins the big bang theory. Tired light theories are the other explanation for redshift and have all failed. The modern steady state theorists admit this and hope a new tired light theory will be developed in the future.

>>14782153
It's esoteric because beinghood is arbitrary. It isn't neccessary for the universe to be, yet it exists and so must therefore have an arbitrary beginning. But the universe is subject to rational and consistant laws, and is therefore governed by neccessity. An arbitrary existance governed by neccessary laws, truly bizarre.

>>14782146
simple: how can all those galaxies such as in OP's 2 pics also be the darkest bit of visible space? any nonzero number x infinity = infinity, space is not true vacuum and therefore has nonzero obscuring factor, therefore as stars approach infinite distance they also approach being infinitely obscured
also here, have some blueshift
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=73746

>>14782169
>>14782153
I can buy space has certain properties, but the current explanation of expanding space was created in order to fit into big bang and red shift. We haven't directly measured expanding space, only assumed it through other measurements which are based on other assumptions. It doesn't pass muster.
I think there are properties of space we just dont understand, just like how we barely figured out a way to measure gravitational waves. The truth behind redshift is probably some combination of gravity and quantum effects that occurs in space which may not be possible to measure in the presence of sufficient gravity like a planet or star. Maybe space is like a "gas" and just "fills" the are in between matter. Just saying the current explanations are not sufficient and we shouldn't tie ourselves to a model "just because"

>>14782190
Scattered light theories of tired light have failed in observations, there isn't an observed blurring with distance. Hence why a new theory of tired light or something akin to it is needed for steady state theorists, as they themselves admit.

>>14776647
this site wasnt full of electric skizos just 2 weeks ago where did they even come from

>>14782301
>My heckin approved science (tm) is getting questioned by people online???
>WE NEED TO BAN THEM! THEY ARE SCHIZOS!
>THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED! LISTEN AND BELIEVE THE ONE TRUE SCIENCE (TM)!

>>14776771
>>/sci/thread/S3751105#p3751197

>>14782301
They got their biggest W since electric ionization and deposition was found on a passing comet a few years back.

>>14782319
>WE NEED TO BAN THEM! THEY ARE SCHIZOS!
damn the electric flat earther skizo has a victim complex i didnt see that coming

>>14782373
t. electric skizo shill

>>14782389
Imagine still believing the big bang in 2022. BAZINGA!!!

>>14782328
JWST reminds me of the Event Horizon movie. The mirror assembly even looks like that gateway to Hell stardrive thing.

>>14782415
imagine "believing" schizo shit... ever

>>14782495
Exactly why nobody believes in redshift, black holes, etc. Pure schizo.

>>14782502
so youre not suffering from your victim complex anymore? we came a full circle?

>>14782495
You're the one rambling about schizos everywhere.

THE JWST discovered galaxies with larger Redshifts, meaning that there were forming as early as a few hundred millions years after the big bang, which is earlier than expected. Not a few hundred millions years before the big bang.

>>14782551
>Expected
Why did they expect galaxy formation at that time in the first place?
>hint: they have no fucking clue what they are talking about and are totally guessing and have no evidence beyond shaky theoretical math built on a pile of assumtions

>>14782560
Because they could see the hyperfine transition that far back, but few of the earliest stars. They didn't have the evidence that things we're happening a bit sooner.

>>14782551
They're billion year old galaxies that exist half a billion years after the big bang.

>>14776714
Yeah bro just invent the universe from first principles. Why didn't they simply do that in the first place?

>>14776647
Either way, if scientists aren't willing to do more with the JWST data than make minor tweaks regardless of whether or not the evidence fits the Big Ban, then we should never fund another fucking multi-billion dollar project ever again because if they already know the fucking answers and they're not willing to accept what their instruments say about the universe, then why not put that money elsewhere.

>>14776647
Either way, if scientists aren't willing to do more with the JWST data than make minor tweaks regardless of whether or not the evidence fits the Big Bang model, then we should never fund another fucking multi-billion dollar cosmology project ever again because if they already know the fucking answers and they're not willing to accept what their instruments say about the universe, then why not put that money elsewhere.

>>14782573
>they could see the hyperfine transition that far back
Can you explain how? Or this is just theoretical math?

If galaxies were formed even earlier then where all all the ayys? Fermi Paradox just got more paradoxical.

>>14782620
The hyperfine transition produces photons with a wavelengeth of 21cm. Which corresponds to the energy that the hydrogen atom loses when the electron goes from a spin up (1/2) to a spin down (-1/2) state.

>>14782649
>>14782662
I mean, if they wanted to prove the big bang, wouldn't that mean there are places we could look at that would never have stars or galaxies? Like there should be an "edge" at some point right? And we should be able to see it looking in any direction.
I guess unless they say the universe is so dense that looking at any point would show stars? But then wouldn't the universe have way more matter t hen they currently hypothesis?
Or would they come up with some kind of folded space theory where it "loops" back?
How can the universe be infinite if it was a "big bang"? And if the big bang has infinite energy/mass then there should be infinite energy mass in our universe?

>>14782669
The Big Bang isn't contingent on if the universe is finite or infinite. Since the in the latter case the universe can go from being infinitely big but at the high density before the big bang, to the lower density at an even larger volume presently, since space expands into itself.

>>14782679
Were talking about science though, the big bang can't be finite and infinite at the same time. If it started out infinite, why would it become finite? And if it is finite, then we should be able to measure its size.

>>14782685
I think you misunderstood my post, or I didn't explain what I meant properly.
I'm talking about different cases, since no one knows whether the universe is infinite or not.
Some Astrophysicists and Cosmologists think the universe is finite, while others propose that its infinite. But neither case affects the validity of the big bang, simply because the Big Bang is about the universe changing from a smaller denser state to a larger less dense one. If the universe is finite it expanded from a singularity into the size it is today. If the universe is infinite, it expanded from an infinite volume at higher temperatures and densities to an larger infinite volume, at cooler densities and temperatures. As of now there is no way to tell the two apart, because they produce the same observations.

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jx-RPQY-eo

Is this Birkeland current shit valid? Always thought it was the coolest thing

>>14782813
>The Thunderbolts Project™ a Voice for the Electric Universe
>The Thunderbolts Project™ Trademark of T-Bolts Group Inc. a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.
Why are all these pseudoscience "Organizations" registered as tax deductible non-profits but are rather concerned about their trademarks and branding?

>>14782813
Dude sounds like hes zombified. No thanks.

>>14782647
Lerner's cosmology>>14779612 is a kind of slow Hegelian emergence over trillions of years, we may just be the first to complexly express spirit. I don't know how that squares with a truly infinite rather than a merely "much older" universe.

A truly infinite cosmology could explain everything akin to Boltzmann brains, the current arrangement of the universe is just a possible arrangement actualised, and in a infinite universe all possibilites will be actualised infinitely many times. Therefore there is no privileged or special ontological status to actual actuality as experienced by any subject, as all possibilites will be actualised over and over and over again ad infinitum.

>>14776647
Fellow Anon /sci/entists let us be civil about this and let's address the initial concern in this forum: Can we prove that the JWST images are not observation errors caused by faulty equipment before we start saying who's theory is wrong? We do have standards here after all.

I just can’t help but thinking the beginning and ending paradigm is something inherently human because of life and death and that applying it to the universe as a whole may be completely incorrect because doesn’t work that way
We’re looking at the universe with human eyes, and are grasping at any theory to fit our expectations and experience first

Perhaps it had no start and no end
And it isn’t what we comprehend as something infinite

We can get all the data we want but we’ll forever be trapped into a human view of making sense of it
It’s just hubris, not saying don’t try but I’m not expecting any revelations here

>>14782877
It’s just a tool
It appears from all other tests that it is functioning correctly as far as the general public is told
I’ve never seen it myself
How am I supposed to know it even exists?
We’re trusting them and I trust that it’s legit and working as intended
But maybe it’s the wrong tool to answer the questions we are asking in this particular case

>>14782878
A static and eternal universe was the accepted thinking before Hubble's redshift observations

>>14776680
Dawkins just can't stop losing
I've never believed in that bullshit, Monadism makes more sense from a Ouroboros design.

>>14776647
>Scientific Dogma
A theory isn't a dogma. There is no dogma in science.
And, of course, the only people saying that the JWST disproved the Big Bang are people that were against the theory in the first place because it gives credit to their dogmas, which, here, are real dogmas: unverifiable beliefs that we should take as facts.

>>14783002
>There is no dogma in science.
I HECKIN LOVE SCIENCE!!!!!! LOL LMAO xD

>>14782669
>I mean, if they wanted to prove the big bang, wouldn't that mean there are places we could look at that would never have stars or galaxies?
Tell me how you can look to the point were everything started. You must be travelled faster then the light you receive. Surely the BigBang guys will state that without hassle. If you are at a mental state to believe such a bullshit nothing else matters.

>>14776700
>Has the Big Bang Theory been disproved?

Yes, it has, but I havnt published my papers, I simply moved on to deeper and more complex problems to solve.

The Hubble constant has been on shaky ground for a while. It's not exactly a shock.

>>14782826
>Why are all these pseudoscience "Organizations" registered as tax deductible non-profits but are rather concerned about their trademarks and branding?

Why is organizations in scare quotes? An organization is a "a group of people who work together in an organized way for a shared purpose" (the definition lifted directly from the online Cambridge English dictionary). And that's what the Thunderbolts Project is: a group of people who work together in an organized way for a shared purpose - promoting their version of physics. They may be wrong, but they are still an organization. They don't stop being one just because you're butthurt over it.

Pic related

>>The Thunderbolts Project™ Trademark of T-Bolts Group Inc. a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization.

No anon, we will not tax people just because you don't like them. Non-profit is just that: they're not out to make a profit. Unless you have evidence that they violated the rules for 501c3 status, get over it. And if you do, then take it to the Internal Revenue Service.

>>14777259
Those are two different people

>>14783309
Even Edwin Hubble had his doubts that this discovery of cosmological redshift meant the universe was expanding.

>>14777259
Even Carl Sagan said that science cancel culture had no place in science.

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

>>14782389
>"Everyone that disagrees with me are exactly the same: pure fucking pieces of shit that have every single negative character trait that I can think of"

Electric universe has nothing to do with flat earth. You sound like some fundie Christian that thinks all other religions are the same and use "Islam" and "Hinduism" interchangeably since they're all a bunch of devil worshippers anyway.

>>14782389
>"Everyone that disagrees with me are exactly the same: pure fucking pieces of shit that have every single negative character trait that I can think of"

Electric universe has nothing to do with flat earth. To make such a claim is to say electric universe theory believes in a flat earth and it doesn't.

But feel free to debunk any of their actual arguments or post links articles or videos of electric universe being debunked.

>>14782389
>damn the electric flat earther skizo has a victim complex i didnt see that coming

Electric universe has nothing to do with flat earth. To make such a claim is to say electric universe theory believes in a flat earth and it doesn't.

But feel free to debunk any of their actual arguments or post links articles or videos of electric universe being debunked

>>14783707
Slightly off topic, but does electric universe say anything about what might happen should forms of nuclear power that create electrons and use them for power directly be used on a mass scale? Right now our electricity generation works by moving existing electrons around. Could the Earth build up a net charge? If it did could it get zapped by cosmic plasma one day?

>>14776700
It's not too late to repent.

>>14783737
I don't know enough about the EU theory to answer that. I do know that even the more extreme versions (like claiming the planet Saturn was once our parent star) does have a round Earth orbiting our sun (after the current sun disrupted the old Saturnian solar system and captured Earth). I don't believe that. For one thing, it would be highly unlikely that Earth would go from one habitable zone to another and also no star has even been found with anything less than dozens of Jovian masses. However, it is most certainly doesn't have a flat earth.

>>14776647
I am conflicted about the deboonking. On one hand, a steady state universe would guarantee heat death would never be a problem if a sapient future race uses the energy in its quadrant of the universe intelligently. On the other hand, it means the chance of a cosmic cancer (some kind of self-replicator either naturally occurring or artificial) arriving in a given spot approaches 1.

>>14784338
Thankfully, space is a lie so there's no risk of that.

>>14776724
the galaxy in question, CEERS-93316, would have developed during a time when, under our current model, no stars would have existed yet. Doesn't disprove the idea of the Big Bang, but it means that we have some part of the history of the universe wrong, and throws a rather large wrench into the theory as a whole.

>>14783737
>Could the Earth build up a net charge? If it did could it get zapped by cosmic plasma one day?
They believe this definitely happens, but not because of anthropogenic causes. Earth isn't a closed system since it's getting cosmic electric influence from the Sun and the galaxy at large. If nearby planets get too close due to cosmic factors, they can short-circuit to strike each other with lightning.

>>14783309
Literally since it was invented it's been on thin ice. It only became dogma because the side promoting it won out in the 90s.

>>14783344
>No anon, we will not tax people just because you don't like them. Non-profit is just that: they're not out to make a profit. Unless you have evidence that they violated the rules for 501c3 status, get over it. And if you do, then take it to the Internal Revenue Service.
People don't know what 501(c)(3) status even entails. Not-for-profit enterprises can pay staff (the thing that seething soience bros get mad about) and that's not a violation of their status. Profit doesn't = salaries paid to employees, it means amassing money beyond what is reinvested in the business.

For example most health insurers are private nonprofits. They make "profits" (colloquial) but they reinvest all of them in expansion of services, salaries, or they refund any excess to payees. Their service is still at a cost, it's not free, but that's not what a non-profit organization is.

>>14782987
This.
Matter can’t be created or destroyed it can only change forms.
Infinite static universe is the most intuitive based on the principles we have established as fact.
As nothing can be created or destroyed, matter and energy must be infinite. Wether or not space itself is infinite we won’t know unless we discover that it’s not, because unless we find “the edge” of space, if it is infinite, we will just keep finding more forever.
Pardon my ramblings, this new JWST discovery has me deep in thought.

>>14776700
Most distant galaxies don't match our expectations. They are small and smooth like this yoda, meaning they can't have collided together to form the larger galaxies we expect. No collision means the standard model is out and the universe is far older than we think, and probably not expanding either.

>>14784338
>cosmic cancer approaches 1
Interesting point, but given the distances involved, wouldn't such a replicator be limited to its own tiny part of the universe.

>>14784609

What is the universe was made for the species that evolved on CEERS-93316, and we are just the unplanned pregnancy of the universe?

>>14786235

s/is/if/

This looks like an outlier.

Are the predictions of Lambda CDM so strict that even 1 galaxy of z=16.7 disproves all of Lambda CDM?

>>14786242
>outlier
There is a whole ass galaxy at a time when stars shouldn't exist. That's a bit more than an 'outlier'.

>>14776680
>I never expected the big bang of all things to be disproven
Why not? It's the most absurd fucking thing imaginable.
>So, like, all matter and space and time were scrunched up into the space of a picometer and then for no reason at all it just, like, exploded

>>14786705
The problem with a steady state universe is that it is seriously challenged by the existence of two things (which may be one thing): Entropy and Time

The existence of entropy and time intrinsically imply a beginning and end state for the universe.

>>14786126
The problem with this is that the universe is going from a more orderly state -> more disorderly state

It's just the nature of our observations so far. In order for a steady state universe to exist, you need some sort of force to re-order the universe and lower the level of entropy again. I don't even think there's any theoretical things that do this, let alone anything observed to do this.

Stars will eventually burn out, matter will eventually destabilize into radiation, radiation will eventually distribute evenly through the universe and everything will be cold, unmoving, and lifeless. This is what everything we know about entropy and time tell us will happen and there is nothing to suggest it won't.

>>14786718
No it fucking doesn’t. Just because humans live and die and write stories with a beginning and an end doesn’t mean time follows the same rules. If you can only go directionally forward in time, then perhaps time is more like a fractal with no end or beginning.
For all you know, the universe began when you first observed it, as you can’t actually prove anything existed prior to that, nor can you prove anyone other than yourself is even real.

>>14786736
Entropy has nothing to do with people living and dying you fucking retard

>>14786730
Conformal Cyclical Cosmology

>>14786730
>This is what everything we know about entropy and time
And about how much is that?
If there’s no Big Bang then there’s no heat death. Let’s say you were right and the universe exploded from a single point and will slowly “even out”
Where is the edge?
Wouldn’t there be a place we could observe that there are no galaxies?
Wouldn’t the universe have to be expanding for that to be true?

>>14786781
>Let’s say you were right and the universe exploded from a single point
It exploded from every point
>Where is the edge?
There is no edge
>Wouldn’t there be a place we could observe that there are no galaxies?
No, no point in space is special
>Wouldn’t the universe have to be expanding for that to be true?
As far as we can tell at the moment it is expanding

>>14786813
>It exploded from every point
How can you explain the hubble constant with that?

>There is no edge
Enlighted bro, please give me the numbers of the forthcoming Lotto over here >>14786813
>As far as we can tell at the moment it is expanding
Tibetan prayer mill on a Tibetan basket weaving site. No coincidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7lxzS6K9PU


Your thread has been debunked by based sixty symbols. Delete your thread NOW

>>14787001
>How can you explain the hubble constant with that?
The Hubble constant is simply a measure of how fast objects at a given distance is receding from us. Every observer at any point in space will measure the same value.
>Enlighted bro, please give me the numbers of the forthcoming Lotto over here
?
>Tibetan prayer mill on a Tibetan basket weaving site. No coincidence
If you have an alternative idea as to why objects further away are more redshifted than those nearby feel free to share it

>>14776647
All the galaxies in that image are flat and therefore young. What's the problem?

>>14776689
So... Multivac?

>>14786730
>The problem with this is that the universe is going from a more orderly state -> more disorderly state
Is it? Galaxies and stars are more ordered than cosmic soup.

>>14786718
Not really. Obviously steady state needs 'creation fields' or some other mechanism to recreate order on an ongoing basis, but I don't see how that is instrincially more of a deus ex machina than entropy already is. In steady state theories the arrow of time contains a dual movement of extropy and entropy, in degenerate theories the arrow of time only has an entropy movement.

>>14786730
>This is what everything we know about entropy and time tell us will happen and there is nothing to suggest it won't.
There's no explanation here for the beinghood of the universe, nor it's low entropy starting conditions, which ungrounds your unstated assumption that the universe in its entirety is a closed system.

How would a closed system come into being? Something external, that the system is open to, must bring the actual system into being; every actual "closed" system must exist within a greater open system, that in a true and proper sense, the actual "closed" system is open too; every actual engine exchanges energy with its environment.

>>14787069
>Every observer at any point in space will measure the same value.
A problem is they don't, even here, on or near Earth, and it's not a precision issue.

The big bang theory being wrong could be one of the best things ever. Maybe the universe is truly infinite.

trust the astrophysical science community: JWST fuck my shit up.

>>14786242
>outlier
>We just happened to look in just the right infinitesimally small spot to find an outlier
ok

>>14776647
Pretty sure the electric universe guys are onto something. They keep getting vindicated.

>>14787005
>Get new data that says your predictions were wrong
>Heres how the new data actually proves our predictions were correct!
>Just keep believing! Everything is still the same!

>>14786813
>It exploded from every point

>>14787069
>The Hubble constant is simply a measure of how fast objects at a given distance is receding from us. Every observer at any point in space will measure the same value.
There are no questions left. Really no more

>>14787069
>>Tibetan prayer mill on a Tibetan basket weaving site. No coincidence
>If you have an alternative idea as to why objects further away are more redshifted than those nearby feel free to share it
Obviously not by explosion from every point.

Lot's of ideas, but they are all the same unprobable bullshit like the one they tell you and you believe in.

>>14783352
They are the same, cuz scientists have no need to say that science evolves over and over again in defense of criticism. It all comes down to the wrong idea of what a scientist is, which is where all this dogmatic and hipocrisy bullshit comes from.

>>14786736
This was an exceptional post. Please go read about what entropy is before posting about physics.

>>14784609
>>14786235
um actually you need to account for DARKTIME(tm). The science is settled.

>>14782126
>Calculate the time between the quick expansion of the universe, and present time
>We get 13.878 billion years
>Build simulations with that info
>Use the james webb telescope to see beyond what current telescopes are capable
>We should barely see anything because early universe, dark ages and stuff
>Instead, we see more galaxies that shouldn't exist according to our simulations
What conclusions you get from this?

>>14787489
>What conclusions you get from this?
Same as ever, science is bullshit when it comes to "big questions". But i am Ok with that, i get what i pay for (nearly nothing). Also better all these midwits make marketing for people even dumber as them then even more people building bombs (or "civil" rockets to transport them)

>>14786242
The most fascinating thing to me, other than redshifted galaxies measuring all the way up to 18 on the index, are the early universe blood red stable spiral galaxies that don't have new active star formation. That shit's spooky.

>>14787489
Using this picture as reference: >>14786242, the only logical conclusion is that the universe cooled down way faster than we initially believed and the reionization era began much earlier than initially believed. Additionally, the first stars would be absolutely massive. We're probably talking 10-100x larger than UY Scuti and Canis Majoris class monsters. Like stars the size of Oort clouds or bigger, that were being born, lived, and died in <1-10M timespans.
This would then result in the production of heavier elements much earlier in the universe's development roadmap, which in turn would lead to more stable star formation as the era of ultra massive stars is short but incredibly violent, generating all the supernovae and blackholes necessary to generate the gas and propulsive effects from stellar explosions, to act as seed banks distributed across the expanding space time, that would germinate into early galaxies.
If visual observation from JWST says that all our computer simulations are wrong and our timelines are skewed. Then, you adjust for what is physically observed and balance for that.

Alternatively, the observed effects of the CMB is either completely wrong or is improperly understood or incorrectly applied, and the "big bang" and all subsequent developments took place billions of years earlier than initially understood. That the universe is way older than 13.8 billion years. But that would then invalidate much much more of cosmology and lead to all kinds of chaos in science and most people, due to peer pressure and confirmation bias, tend to want to avoid doing that.

>>14781905
How's this: the universe has always been. Redshifted galaxies are simply more red.
To elaborate: There are two fundamental substances of the universe, one being the physical, which can be described with physics, the other being the structural, which can be described with logic. Neither can ever be fully described however, as no matter the complexity of any human made tool, it cannot constitute the escape of human perception and therefore cannot experience multiple things as once, much less all things. Therefore, for intents and purposes, we should aim to nudge toward reality, but accept that things are as they appear to be.
Oh and cause and effect are simply illusory and don't actually exist, at least not necessarily so.

>>14787325
The Hubble tension is very interesting, and I hope we manage to find out what's causing it. But the fact that we get slightly differing answers from different probes doesn't mean we have to reject cosmic expansion.
>>14787442
>Obviously not by explosion from every point.
You should at least try to understand the idea fully if you are so adamant in trying to disprove it. I have no personal stake in whether there was a Big Bang or not and would be happy to abandon it if new observations disqualify it, but the JWST does not do that.

Does this indicate we're possibly living in a simulation? A steady state universe is exactly what you would expect if our reality is just a sophisticated video game.

>>14787712
>>14787977
>We wrong wrong, how can we twist it to make our current hypotheses right?
Literally not science. This is SCIENCE (TM). Geocentrists did the exact same thing, coming up with ever more unbelievable arguments why geocentrism must be true in spite of new evidence.
Bing Bang is the new flat earth.

>>14788004
How about you come with an alternate hypothesis that explain current observations instead of shitposting?

>>14776675
I came here to post more or less this. Also that new discoveries sometimes also bring practical benefits for humanity which is a very nice bonus.

>>14788021
You seem mad that you false god has been slain.

>>14786242
what condom brand is this

>>14782169
>Tired light
What about aether? Wouldn't it also explain the expansion if it gets confirmed empirically? Imagine being on a crest of a dissipating wave. Except in 3D.

>>14782878
>muh anthropomorphism
Planets form, then lose their magnetospheres and atmospheres, lose chunks of their bodies due to impacts and erosions, sometimes even get completely ripped apart. Stars form, burn through the fuel, end up as neutron stars or "black holes". Galaxies form and either get slowly disassembled by other passing galaxies, changed by collisions with other galaxies, but eventually their stars burn through the fuel and possibly everything just falls into their central "black holes". If anything humans are cosmomorphisms instead.

>>14784629
>If nearby planets get too close due to cosmic factors, they can short-circuit to strike each other with lightning.
Would be expensive but fairly straightforward and fun to test.

>>14786738
>Entropy has nothing to do with people living and dying you fucking retard
You fuckiny serious, mate? This is the dumbest thing I've heard all week and you should be ashamed of your subhuman intellect. Commit sudoku

>>14787977
>You should at least try to understand the idea fully if you are so adamant in trying to disprove
I don't either but your explanation is in no way different to the single point one because it has to start there too. Further it do not regard my initial claim because of the same outcome.

>>14776726
>calling out as a fraud
Such a childish mentality

>>14776766
Far smarter than other online communities is still pretty fucking dumb

>>14776768
>Surveys since then have shown that object is just one of a stunning profusion of early galaxies, each small by today’s standards, but more luminous than astronomers had expected.
>EACH SMALL BY TODAY'S STANDARDS
So they're different than the ones we have now. So something WAS different that far in the past.
Seems like it's the Steady State Theory that just got resurrected just to be BTFO once again.

>>14776647
Reminder that the Big Bang Theory was formulated by a priest and its replacement with a steady state universe would pretty firmly disprove all forms of abrahamism.

>>14787295
The creation field exists. We just call it the quantum vacuum because it almost always nets out to zero.

>In The Animate and the Inanimate, Sidis states that the universe is infinite, as well as it containing sections of "negative tendencies" where various laws of physics were reversed that are juxtaposed with "positive tendencies", which switch over epochs of time.
so William James Sidis was right all along

>>14782322
>summerfags and bots are spamming and ruining that thread