A beautiful star cluster that's relatively close to Earth: just 200,000 lightyears away.

[PWMDMD]

If data and theory don't fit, then the theory should be discarded in lieu of a better theory, not the data. Interpretation of the data are often modified to fit the theory which happens regularly in the cosmology community.

Not in my experience. One of the textbooks still used by universities is by Niel Comins, "Discovering the Essential Universe," and not one mention of alternative cosmological theories is to be found.

This is a ridiculous statement and a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. There is not a single theory in existence, nor will there ever be, for which 100% of all data generated fit the theory perfectly and that is an impossible expectation under any circumstance. Science is a process, not an endpoint, and if you let perfect be the enemy of the good, then science breaks completely, which is nonsense since it has proven more than useful in our lives. Some things are simply estimates based on technological barriers but those estimates get better with time as technology gets better. Using your rationale, we should throw the entire theory out in favor of another theory even though the vast majority of data points still lead in the direction of that original theory simply because the data doesn't match the theory perfectly? This is not easy stuff to measure/test and some of it may never be directly testable due to distance and time restrictions.

 

[JeffKeryk]

My understanding is that is the JWST did not disprove the BB Theory. I think it is fair to say, science does not need to be perfect to be credible.

I will be attending a few Silicon Valley Astronomy Lectures.
Interesting times ahead!

 

[JeffKeryk]

Yes but from what many astronomers have said in the past (there's still debate). Some stars are so far from earth the light is still traveling towards us but the star has already burned out.

Here is the Webb explanation.
"Galaxies are yet farther away in both space and time. Our nearest large neighbor galaxy, Andromeda, is about two-and-a-half million light-years away. The Virgo Cluster of galaxies is the largest nearby collection of galaxies, at about 60 million light-years from the Milky Way. The light we see today from galaxies in the Virgo Cluster started on its path toward us at the same time as the age of the dinosaurs was ending on Earth. If you were in a Virgo Cluster galaxy today, and you had a telescope powerful enough to study the Earth, you would be able to see the prehistoric reptiles."

 

[MolaKule]

This is a ridiculous statement and a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works...

I know fully well how current science works and I know how science is supposed to work, so don't think you can start browbeating.

You need to actually read my posts and suggested papers and study some Philosophy of Science, such as Thomas Kuhn's, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and The Essential Tension to learn how science is actually practiced and how it has deviated from that of Roger Bacon and Isaac Newton, the authors of the modern Scientific Method.

James Gunn, co-founder of the Sloan survey, said:

“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. … A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.” in, Cho, A., A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 317:1848–1850, 2007.

Now an astrophysics question for you: What is the difference between the hypothesized Big Bang singularity and Black Hole singularities?

 

[MolaKule]

Here is the Webb explanation.
"Galaxies are yet farther away in both space and time. Our nearest large neighbor galaxy, Andromeda, is about two-and-a-half million light-years away. The Virgo Cluster of galaxies is the largest nearby collection of galaxies, at about 60 million light-years from the Milky Way. The light we see today from galaxies in the Virgo Cluster started on its path toward us at the same time as the age of the dinosaurs was ending on Earth. If you were in a Virgo Cluster galaxy today, and you had a telescope powerful enough to study the Earth, you would be able to see the prehistoric reptiles."

That's assuming 1) the Dinosaurs died out 60^6 years ago and, on 2) the two-way average value of the speed of light. See post #20.

R. Lieu, an astrophysicist stated, "Cosmology is not even astrophysics: all the principal assumptions in this field are unverified (or unverifiable) in the laboratory … ." LCDM cosmology: how much suppression of credible evidence, and does the model really lead its competitors, using all evidence? 17 May 2007, arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462v1.

This seems like an accurate analysis because ‘cosmologists’ today are inventing all sorts of stuff that has just the right properties to make their theories work, but stuff that has never been observed in the lab. Lieu says that ‘because the Universe offers no control experiment, i.e. with no independent checks, it is bound to be highly ambiguous and degenerate.’ They have become ‘comfortable with inventing unknowns to explain the unknown.’

Lieu then lists a few counter evidences to LCDM inflation cosmology, all of which have been, or are in the process of being, published in topmost astronomy journals. They are:

1. the number density evolution curve in galaxy clusters (there is a massive dark matter problem in them also) does not agree with the LCDM prediction to 7σ statistical significance,
2. only 50% of the baryons predicted by the LCDM model seem to exist at low redshifts—called the missing baryon problem,
3. no explanation for the soft X-ray excess from clusters, Abell 3112, for example,
4. the disparity between the values Sandage et al. (H0 ≈ 62 km/s/Mpc) and Freedman et al. (H0 ≈ 70 km/s/Mpc) determine for the Hubble constant from two independent analyses of HST data,
5. galaxy groups like our own Local group seem to harbor too much matter,
6. very feeble SZE detected by WMAP—no shadow cast in the foreground as expected from a background source; this has now been tested by separate authors respectively on two sets of 31 and 100 rich clusters,
7. Axis of Evil in the CMB octopole and quadrupole expansion terms correlate with HI clouds in the Galaxy, where Lieu concludes that a significant fraction of the WMAP anisotropy at the primary acoustic peak is not cosmological,
8. dwarf galaxy rotation curves. The data indicate constant density cores, whereas LCDM halo profiles have central cusps.

These evidences match other cosmological models better than the BB LCDM.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Interesting times ahead...

 

[PWMDMD]

I know fully well how current science works and I know how science is supposed to work, so don't think you can start browbeating.

You need to actually read my posts and suggested papers and study some Philosophy of Science, such as Thomas Kuhn's, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and The Essential Tension to learn how science is actually practiced and how it has deviated from that of Roger Bacon and Isaac Newton, the authors of the modern Scientific Method.

James Gunn, co-founder of the Sloan survey, said:
“Cosmology may look like a science, but it isn’t a science. … A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you can’t do that in cosmology.” in, Cho, A., A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 317:1848–1850, 2007.

Now an astrophysics question for you: What is the difference between the hypothesized Big Bang singularity and Black Hole singularities?

I disagree. While there is a large observational component to cosmology all of the repeatable and testable experimental data coming out of LHC supports the standard model and cosmology. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation, rates of expansion of the universe, the movement of objects through the universe and the interaction of these objects with other objects, measurements of standard candles, the effect of gravity on objects/light, simple ideas like redshift, etc, etc, etc are observational in nature but they are also the test and the experiment. Mathematics/theory makes a prediction and a measurement agrees or disagrees with that prediction. Then we need to include the HUGE testable and repeatable data from quantum mechanics and the LHC that then can be extended to describe and explain the behavior of the universe. LIGO was a huge testable/repeatable experiment. This IS science.

Fundamentally, there is no difference between these two singularities, both dimensionless points of infinite density. However, there are theoretical differences. The BB singularity contained all of the energy in the universe and it is responsible for the formation of space-time. BH singularities exist within space-time and while they have infinite density they likely tear and stop space-time. Space-time would both start and stop with a singularity.

My argument isn't that the BB is right although it certainly has the most supporting evidence. No one could say that for sure. My argument is it's not the only theory on the formation of the universe being taught at the undergraduate and graduate levels and that there are tens of books written for laypeople who cover all of the alternatives. You perceive that there is a bias for the BB and that data doesn't support it as well as other theories and after reading 20 books I can say there is in fact more support for the BB than any other theory (this may change but it is what it is) but that all of the other theories were presented including data for and against with explicit statements that this is still a very open question. What more do you want?

Have you read these books? Do you know what is in the syllabus of modern cosmology and astrophysics courses? You presented a 10-year-old textbook that as best I can tell is a very basic introduction to cosmology that briefly describes the BB and the alternatives seem outside the scope of this outdated book.

 

[SC Maintenance]

My understanding is that is the JWST did not disprove the BB Theory. I think it is fair to say, science does not need to be perfect to be credible.

Thats actually pretty funny in laymans terms - write an article that someone didn't disprove a theory - that has never been proven to begin with.

I guess Newton ruined Leibnez, and Bell ruined Tesla, so there isn't much new in the world.

 

[PWMDMD]

Thats actually pretty funny in laymans terms - write an article that someone didn't disprove a theory - that has never been proven to begin with.

I guess Newton ruined Leibnez, and Bell ruined Tesla, so there isn't much new in the world.

It's not funny at all. The original author was misquoted (intentionally) and so had to respond because a bunch of science-denier know-nothings were trying to prove their agenda.

While there are alternative theories, there is overwhelming evidence for the BB model and that's why it's popular with scientists. It's popular with scientists because it's supported by evidence and not supported by scientists simply because it's popular.

 

[stormgol]

ngc 2070, the central star cluster of the tarentula nebula in the large magellanic cloud. it contains some of the most massive and powerful stars known. all wolf rayet or O class type stars.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Thats actually pretty funny in laymans terms - write an article that someone didn't disprove a theory - that has never been proven to begin with.

I guess Newton ruined Leibnez, and Bell ruined Tesla, so there isn't much new in the world.

I appreciate your response but I cannot find it compelling. I cited what I believe to be a reputable article referring to those who are incorrectly using JWST for their own biases. There are those who state JWST is disproving the BB theory; that may be their intellectual opinion but certainly has not been proven.
As others have stated, there are some events that cannot be replicated in a lab. From my post:
"I think it is fair to say, science does not need to be perfect to be credible."

As the OP of this thread, I was aiming for scientific thought stimulation. I consider this to be an amazing time to be alive with the scientific advancements and exploration.

 

[fantastic]

I honestly can't believe some people chime in here to say "This shows BBT is not true".
It's common knowledge that most scientist agree on that theory based on the evidence they've seen. Until most agree on something different, based on new evidence, that is the case where it stands today.

I know my boundaries & the astrophysics aspect of all this new territory I'll leave it up to the Niel Degrass folks that have better understanding than us BITOG type. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

These images have been stellar to see the quality from this new telescope. It boggles my mind every time. This will increase our understanding of "What's out there" & "What's not out there".

 

[MolaKule]

I disagree. While there is a large observational component to cosmology all of the repeatable and testable experimental data coming out of LHC supports the standard model and cosmology. Measurements of the cosmic background radiation, rates of expansion of the universe, the movement of objects through the universe and the interaction of these objects with other objects, measurements of standard candles, the effect of gravity on objects/light, simple ideas like redshift, etc, etc, etc are observational in nature but they are also the test and the experiment. Mathematics/theory makes a prediction and a measurement agrees or disagrees with that prediction. Then we need to include the HUGE testable and repeatable data from quantum mechanics and the LHC that then can be extended to describe and explain the behavior of the universe. LIGO was a huge testable/repeatable experiment. This IS science.

Please explain this connection between QM and the LHC. You seem to be vacillating from one topic to another.

The Ligo experiment was an experiment to detect gravitational waves and how it might create space-time ripples.

In this paper the CBR results from the Thermalization of Starlight: See, Michael Ibison, Thermalization of Starlight in the Steady-State Cosmology, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin, Austin, TX 78759, USA.

Fundamentally, there is no difference between these two singularities, both dimensionless points of infinite density. However, there are theoretical differences. The BB singularity contained all of the energy in the universe and it is responsible for the formation of space-time. BH singularities exist within space-time and while they have infinite density they likely tear and stop space-time. Space-time would both start and stop with a singularity.

Yes there is a major difference in which you may not be aware regardless of your 20 book scenario:

Not one has created a singularity in a laboratory. No singularities have been directly observed. And the only singularities for which we have indirect observational evidence – namely those in the core of a black hole – are of an entirely different variety. Black Hole singularities are surrounded by an event horizon. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever of a naked singularity as proposed in BB cosmology (i.e., no event horizon). A principle in physics which forbids the existence of a naked singularity, is the “cosmic censorship hypothesis”, the principle states that all singularities must be surrounded by an event horizon. Usually, the big bang is arbitrarily exempted from this principle because it would violate it. The hypothesis is not proved. In any case, there is no observational or experimental evidence for a big bang singularity, nor for any of the conditions associated with it. It is therefore not scientific.

My argument isn't that the BB is right although it certainly has the most supporting evidence. No one could say that for sure. My argument is it's not the only theory on the formation of the universe being taught at the undergraduate and graduate levels and that there are tens of books written for laypeople who cover all of the alternatives. You perceive that there is a bias for the BB and that data doesn't support it as well as other theories and after reading 20 books I can say there is in fact more support for the BB than any other theory (this may change but it is what it is) but that all of the other theories were presented including data for and against with explicit statements that this is still a very open question. What more do you want?

Yes, I have already pointed out the bias in previous posts.

What I would like to see are more scientists following the scientific method instead of presenting philosophical conjectures parading as science.

Have you read these books? Do you know what is in the syllabus of modern cosmology and astrophysics courses?

I sure do but that doesn't mean that the BB theory is correct, no matter how many textbooks are printed.

 

[MolaKule]

It's not funny at all. The original author was misquoted (intentionally) and so had to respond because a bunch of science-denier know-nothings were trying to prove their agenda.

I have yet to see any science-deniers posting here. The OP certainly isn't.

Does this infer you are the only person who has any knowledge of astrophysics and cosmology?

One of the issues here (getting back to the main discussion), is that while JWS is visualizing the far reaches of space via mostly IR telescope technology, there is increasing data from it that contradicts many of the tenets of BB cosmology, therefore, the BB cosmology and its underlying theorems are suspect and should not be regarded as the best explanatory model.

While there are alternative theories, there is overwhelming evidence for the BB model and that's why it's popular with scientists. It's popular with scientists because it's supported by evidence and not supported by scientists simply because it's popular.

While the BB is the current dominant model, it is does not mean it is an accurate model, nor the final model. I find the phrase "overwhelming evidence," is used mostly used by proponents who have accepted the popular media's propaganda but who have not studied the physical details of these Hypotheses.

 

[MolaKule]

I appreciate your response but I cannot find it compelling. I cited what I believe to be a reputable article referring to those who are incorrectly using JWST for their own biases. There are those who state JWST is disproving the BB theory; that may be their intellectual opinion but certainly has not been proven.
As others have stated, there are some events that cannot be replicated in a lab. From my post:
"I think it is fair to say, science does not need to be perfect to be credible."

As the OP of this thread, I was aiming for scientific thought stimulation. I consider this to be an amazing time to be alive with the scientific advancements and exploration.

It is indeed an exciting time.

However, in a court of law, if one is accused of an offense, and DNA evidence has been left behind which points to the defendant as committing the crime at the alleged time and place of the crime, and a motive has also been established, the defendant will most likely be convicted.

Should we not hold science to the same set of standards?

The scientific method says that in order for a theory to be upheld, laboratory and observational evidence should be present to sustain it.

Science doesn’t “prove” theories. Scientific measurements and observations can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is inconsistent with measurements, observations, or laboratory results could be disproved by a future measurement, observation, or laboratory experiment.

 

[PWMDMD]

I have yet to see any science-deniers posting here. The OP certainly isn't.

Does this infer you are the only person who has any knowledge of astrophysics and cosmology?

One of the issues here (getting back to the main discussion), is that while JWS is visualizing the far reaches of space via mostly IR telescope technology, there is increasing data from it that contradicts many of the tenets of BB cosmology, therefore, the BB cosmology and its underlying theorems are suspect and should not be regarded as the best explanatory model.

While the BB is the current dominant model, it is does not mean it is an accurate model, nor the final model. I find the phrase "overwhelming evidence," is used mostly used by proponents have accepted the popular media's propaganda but who have not studied the physical details of these Hypotheses.

It's the dominant model amongst physicists and cosmologists right now. These are people who are in a much better position to judge the merits of these theories than either one of us. It is the dominant model because as of right now, it IS the most accurate model that fits the data best and there is no other model that fits better in as many places. There are papers and pieces of other models that may fit better in certain places but much less well in others. When this is no longer true, when an alternate theory fits all/most/the majority of data and measurements better than the BB, then that alternative model will become the dominant model.

This is something for the physics/cosmology/astronomy community to decide as a whole. The twenty or so books I've read on the topic, are entirely other people's ideas because I'm not a physicist/cosmologist/astronomer. I will change my mind when credible experts review and interpret the data, change their minds, and write more books that give me the digested and already organized logic they used to decide the BB is out and something else is in. When I read several of these books, all from different authors, all making similar logical conclusions based on the data they present, and all being supported by new data from different groups/people, then I'll be more willing to accept the new theory.

 

[PWMDMD]

I have yet to see any science-deniers posting here. The OP certainly isn't.

Does this infer you are the only person who has any knowledge of astrophysics and cosmology?

The science deniers are in the article that JeffK posted. These are people who intentionally misquoted the author of a paper to bolster their own science-denying agenda and then more science-denying idiots come along and read their misquote and before you know it people really believe the BB has been debunked when it has not.

 

[JeffKeryk]

It is indeed an exciting time.

However, in a court of law, if one is accused of an offense, and DNA evidence has been left behind which points to the defendant as committing the crime at the alleged time and place of the crime, and a motive has also been established, the defendant will most likely be convicted.

Should we not hold science to the same set of standards?

Well, yes and no. DNA is statistically pretty darn accurate. Do we have that degree of accuracy in, say the BB one way or another? Can we ever? Above my paygrade.

I prefer to look at science as, new data, more data, improved data, disproved data, etc. gets us closer to what we cannot absolutely know. I get this attitude from years of statistical analytics in the world of business, especially statistical forecasting. The data is rarely what it appears and people can make it support their personal agenda if they choose to do so. It is even hard not to do so.

"Science is man's endless search for truth in nature."

I do not pretend to be as knowledgeable as others. But I am profoundly curious. If I may take it one step further; perhaps if mankind would look at ourselves as our tiny part of the universe, we might conclude we are all in this together? Just my 2 cents. I also use current scientific discussion to encourage my grand nieces to pursue education.

I have found things are right until they are wrong. Progress, not perfection.

 

[JeffKeryk]

The science deniers are in the article that JeffK posted. These are people who intentionally misquoted the author of a paper to bolster their own science-denying agenda and then more science-denying idiots come along and read their misquote and before you know it people really believe the BB has been debunked when it has not.

This is exactly why I chose this article.

 

[MolaKule]

The science deniers are in the article that JeffK posted. These are people who intentionally misquoted the author of a paper to bolster their own science-denying agenda and then more science-denying idiots come along and read their misquote and before you know it people really believe the BB has been debunked when it has not.

The article Jeffery pointed to said this:

"The author of the article, an independent researcher named Eric Lerner, has been a serial denier of the Big Bang since the late 1980s, preferring his personal pseudoscientific alternative..."

The article does not say he is or was a science denier (so let's correct this now), but a serial denier of the Big Bang and took Kirpatrick's statements out of context, which I believe he did.

Lerner has proposed an alternative Plasma Cosmology (based on Alfven's scientific theories) that has yet to be verified and has had many criticisms of his plasma cosmology. I personally do not agree with the tenets of his plasma cosmology.

Criticisms of the Big Bang do not emanate from rejecters of the scientific method, but from people who believe in the scientific method and who have examined the detailed physics of it and have found it wanting.