A Facebook video claims that the James Webb Space Telescope and its images are fake, with no evidence to support these claims. Over 1,200 people, including professional scientists, have signed an online petition asking NASA to rename the telescope. Critics argue that Webb is a $10bn machine in search of the end of darkness, and the Hubble successor faces “two weeks of terror”. The top photo was captured by a camera aboard the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite, which orbits about 1 million miles from Earth.
The telescope’s namesake is suspected to have been involved in LGBTQ discrimination. The document describes an incident that occurred during the launch of the telescope, which may have caused the discrepancy. The latest data from both telescopes working suggests that the telescope has not disproved the Big Bang, despite an article about a pseudoscientific theory that went viral in 2018.
The James Webb Space Telescope captured several spectacular images of space, but one standout image was a pair of actively forming stars. The pictures were taken in a trapped environment, where galaxies don’t exist, and Earth is covered by a dome. Some conspiracy theorists have cast doubt over the authenticity of the photographs, describing them as “fakes” due to the telescope’s namesake’s involvement in LGBTQ discrimination.
📹 Big Bang Just DISPROVEN?! Joe Rogan & Stephen C. Meyer
… the James Webb Space Telescope disproved the Big Bang, as Eric Lerner claims in his book, the Big Bang Never Happened?
Are the images of the James Webb telescope not real?
The images captured by the James Webb Space Telescope are considered to be real due to their dramatic nature. These images are based on infrared wavelengths, which are a type of light that is beyond the human eye’s ability to perceive. The images are authentic and the methodology for processing images in a manner consistent with that of a scientist utilising the telescope is delineated in a guide.
Why is the Webb Telescope such a high risk?
The JWST observatory faces two large, aggregated risks, with the first being the potential for a key interaction impacting system performance. The risks are well below credible likelihoods, meaning less than 0. 1. The primary candidates for aggregation involve the deployments, particularly the sunshield. These risks are related to the observatory’s inability to be fully tested in final flight configuration, which would require deploying a sunshade without gravity under extreme thermal conditions.
There was no prior heritage to put to rest any interactions that might not have been observed when each was tested individually. The second risk is the possibility that a key interaction that impacts system performance is not identified due to the observatory’s massive size, complexity, development constraints, and unique nature.
Could everything we know about the universe be wrong?
The standard model of cosmology has been the subject of criticism, which has served to reinforce it but also to highlight the possibility of it being incorrect.
What is the problem with the James Webb camera?
James Webb’s spectroscopy mode has been reopened after engineers found increased contact forces between the wheel central bearing assembly’s sub-components under certain conditions. The Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore has given a green light for the affected mode to resume operations and is developing safety recommendations for using the affected wheel. The problem has caused astronomers to be buzzing about the ‘Pillars of Creation’ photo.
What was the craziest discoveries of the James Webb telescope?
The James Webb Space Telescope has yielded substantial insights, including the formation of stars and planetary systems, the existence of cosmic cliffs in the Carina Nebula, the characteristics of extraterrestrial worlds, the decoding of the secrets of our solar system, and the uncovering of the hidden processes occurring on Titan.
Did James Webb telescope images break the universe?
NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) may have overestimated the universe’s size, as it captured gargantuan galaxies in its first images, which are too large to be explained by current cosmological theories. The findings from JWST provide insights into ultramassive galaxies and early-universe cosmology, and bursty star formation naturally explains the abundance of bright galaxies at cosmic dawn. Additionally, a population of red candidate massive galaxies is observed around 600 million years after the Big Bang.
Is The James Webb telescope bad for the Environment?
The authors argue that all planned facilities should assess their projected carbon footprint and make their results public. Funding agencies could require facilities to conduct and publish such analyses, allowing for more accurate data and more robust conclusions. Facilities like the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) should consolidate these estimates and implement effective measures to reduce their carbon footprints. Existing facilities should prepare an action plan for reducing their footprints over the coming years, making progress transparent to the public and holding facilities accountable.
Funding agencies should include carbon budget limits and the environment should inform decisions about implementation and funding. The authors also argue that reducing the pace at which new astronomical observatories are built is the only measure that can make the field sustainable in the short run. Reducing the pace of science has other benefits, such as a more comprehensive exploitation of data, less publication pressure, and more money available to move existing observatories towards sustainability. While slowing down may not be popular among astronomers and scientists, it is crucial to prioritize stopping climate change and reducing emissions.
What is the controversy with the Webb Telescope?
Former NASA administrator Webb has been the subject of criticism for his role in the dismissal of numerous gay employees and for being associated with the most powerful space observatory in history, despite being deemed unfit for the position.
Why did James Webb leave NASA?
During the Korean War, the Department of Defense’s focus on the war weakened Webb’s influence. State Department Director of Policy Planning Paul Nitze became the principal advisor to Secretary Acheson, leading to a misunderstanding and Webb’s resignation in 1952. He left Washington for a position in Oklahoma City’s Kerr-McGee Oil Corp., but remained active in government circles.
In 1961, Webb accepted President John F. Kennedy’s appointment as NASA administrator, taking over from interim director Hugh L. Dryden. He directed NASA’s efforts to land an American on the Moon through the Apollo program. Webb lobbied for Congress support for NASA for seven years after Kennedy’s announcement, eventually leaving in 1968. With President Lyndon B. Johnson’s support, he produced continued support and resources for Apollo.
During Webb’s administration, NASA developed from a loose collection of research centers to a coordinated organization. He played a key role in creating the Manned Spacecraft Center and later the Johnson Space Center in Houston. Despite pressures to focus on the Apollo program, Webb ensured NASA carried out a program of planetary exploration with the Mariner and Pioneer space programs.
How does the James Webb telescope affect humans?
NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) was launched in December 2021, aiming to build on the legacy of the Hubble Space Telescope. JWST is expected to revolutionize our understanding of the cosmos by determining whether planets orbiting other stars could support life and observing galaxies formed just after the Big Bang. The observatory builds on the three decades of discoveries made by the Hubble Space Telescope, which launched in 1990. JWST is crucial as Earth’s atmosphere distorts our view of distant celestial objects and blocks certain wavelengths of light, including infrared.
Infrared-capable space telescopes can determine the atmospheric composition of planets orbiting other stars, look through clouds of dust and gas to see newborn stars, and peer back through time to see galaxies formed after the Big Bang.
What went wrong with the Webb Telescope?
NIRISS has faced several failures on JWST, including a deteriorating lattice wheel in the infrared instrument (MIRI) in August and a software failure in the orientation control system in December. The wheel was only used in one of the four observation modes, so observations were suspended while MIRI operation continued in other three. Engineers identified the cause and developed guidelines for safe use. The observatory returned to normal operation on December 20.
Engineers are expected to fix all malfunctions remotely, as the observatory is located almost 2 million kilometers from Earth at the L2 Lagrange point. The observatory’s remote operation is crucial for maintaining safety and ensuring the safety of the spacecraft.
📹 No, The James Webb Space Telescope Did Not Disprove the Big Bang (Eric Lerner is Delusional)
Something strange has been happening lately. Lots of people are under the impression that images from the James Webb Space …
The elephant in the room, that one huge question which is never brought up: What existed BEFORE the big bang? What, exactly “banged”? Are we to simply assume that matter didn’t not exist, then it suddenly sprang forth from nothing? It is always presented as if suddenly, everything came from nothing. Has there been only one bang? Perhaps there were other bangs early, and they have expanded beyond our ability to recognize their existence?
Per Wiki: “Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: ‘A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.'” This is more-than-coincidentally the estimated amount of time it would take for a competitive and hence intelligently evolved tribal mentality to devolve into an idiocracy.
(To me, this sounds like the Universal Torus theory. Birth, life, death… rebirth, infinitely). I think the Roger Penrose theory, that the cosmic background radiation was already evenly dispersed at the moment of the Big Bang, is fascinating. That means the empty space the Universe propagated into was already there for an infinite amount of time. And that we are living in the opposite side of a black hole… the Big Bang was a white hole (explains a lot)… crazy.
I still think there is something fundametal wrong with the whole theory regarding redshift. They still need to measure redshift, redshifting. Meaning that the wavelenght of a very distant object is visible changing over time too. Lets say that for example z=10 becomes z=10.000000001 over a span of the last 50 years or so. Something like that. If it cannot be calculated and tested, redshift itself might be caused by something else.
This accomplished physicist said something that I do not think he meant. He said that the redshifts in faraway galaxies were predicted by the Big Bang theory, when in fact, redshift was known before the Big Bang was an accepted theory. If a galaxy is moving away from you, even if there were no universal expansion or Big Bang, there would still be a redshift of the light.
To me it is all about the data, the JWST data is telling us something is off, our perceived age of the universe might be incorrect. Our understanding of galaxy formation theory is so incomplete we can’t really confirm or deny these findings at the moment. However, the JWST data is consistently pointing out that we do not have the full scope, and what we think is the age of the universe might be of by as much as 14 billion years.
It suggests Galaxies formed in what would necessarily be the innermost, least energetic, and therefore least dense area surrounding the singularity, or where it once was. And yet that area somehow must have cooled and coalesced within the first 200 million years. Most of the energy had already been flung outward. However, perhaps its like the center of an explosion, the energy expands outward, but it leaves a puff of smoke hanging in the sky. Maybe it was a big pocket, bubble or puff of energy that cooled and coalesced into matter, then formed galaxies. It would explain how those innermost galaxies developed first. There must have been residual energy lingering around the center of the Big Bang.
So the key thing is whether we can attribute the FACT of observed redshift to the mere human consensus INTERPRETATION of expansion of the in-between grid. It wasn’t a dumb assumption. Not at all. But JWST showed us we are wrong nonetheless. The fact it showed us furthest galaxies are as very mature AND at correct size is simply inconsistent with what we predicted to see if our standard model of accelerated expansion was correct. Lets not be bad losers here. We just did NOT predict what JWST showed. Period. It doesn’t mean there never was a big bang. Just means the observed redshift is NOT related to what we thought was accelerated cosmic expansion. So no dark energy needed. sorry. There is an oscillating universe for sure, but we have to give up the idea we know its size and time limit for now (can be calculated differently though). It is orders of magnitude larger. Why can’t we rejoice about this triumph of experimentalism and technology. Why spent billions on this superb instrument and simply don’t dare to look through the telescope if it may proves us wrong. Something with Galileo? So then, let’s now take the only sensible alternative of what caused redshift; the OBSERVED orthogonal wrapping of spacetime (and thus incoming light passing through it) at the edges of our own galaxy . We observed this phenomenon for sure at the interior of our galaxy (the redshift we call our yellowish central galactic bar, displaying Sag A* in an orthogonal projection). THAT is what causes redshift both at the interior edge and outer edge of our galactic plane.
This reminds me of the Atheists that declared “if you can show me human footprints inside dinosaur prints we would believe.” Then Dr Carl Baugh found those prints and placed them on display. When the Atheists / Evolutionists heard about it they went to Baugh’s museum to see it for themselves; but when they saw it they said, “IMPOSSIBLE” and walked off as if the prints never existed. As declared in 2Peter 3:5 they are “WILLINGLY IGNORANT.”
I dont think that the universe is the age we think it is. I think it is much older. Just because the oldest light we see has a certain age does not mean that this is the oldest light to ever have existed. There could easily have been older sources of light that perished and its light went out and passed by this planet beyond the observable universe far earlier than what we are able to see today. This may also be why our timeline for when the formation of galaxies dont add up; the universe is simply older than we think it is and the formation of galaxies is actually correct.
From the initial explosion of the alleged Big Bang matter has been flying outwards away from the singularity. That would imply that matter further away is less organized because it is at the wavefront. And that is not what the JWT is showing us. We are seeing incredibly organized and mature galaxies. Please explain? Where am I missing the boat?
Obviously the Big bang was preceded by a big crush. Redshift is incontrovertibly incorrect in terms of measuring the expansion of everything starting with the big bang. If you quantized space into 11 dimensions and assume that space quanta have any interior elasticity at all, redshift becomes imminent and you don’t need to attempt to rationalize all kinds of mathematical errors and dark energy. Was there a big bang? Yes. Does that automatically and necessarily imply a proceeding big crush? Absolutely.
There is something irrefutable about cosmology, it is the most obvious and clear fact and I take the position that it will continue in the future. That we have always underestimated how big the universe is. It started as a flat earth with a rotating sun, and progress even bigger and bigger and bigger, until now we even think it is too big to even see/detect how big it is. That should tell you something important.
Joe Rogan needs to interview Dr Randell Mills who has discovered the dark matter particle he calls Hydrino. Why this discovery is never mentioned by cosmologists is a complete mystery. Dr. Mills also promotes new theories that threaten Quantum Mechanics. He is a true genius in a par with Einstein. Nobody has really studied his free 1000 page website that documents his discoveries. We need to give this guy a platform to explain to the public exactly why existing theory is inadequate and should be replaced.
The Big Bang never made sense to me. If there was “nothing” before the Big Bang then what caused it? Where did the matter come from? How can the matter from the explosion be accelerating? The most energy anything has is at the point of the explosion. Like a bullet shot from a gun, The bullet never gets faster as it is flying thru the air. There are so many holes in this theory.
35 years ago I stated that the Big Bang is the wrong theory, that the universe is endless, infinite and stationary, no dark energy, no dark matter. This requires reevaluation about the expansion, new way of interpreting the red shift, and new distance measures. So, yes, I think this last year has been fantastic and younger brains have a smörgåsbord of ideas and observations to make sense of. Cosmology is revitalized, now the work begins. I envy the young.
With a new point outside our “local linearization”, “more galaxies forming sooner” if carried to the limit in a mathematical sense, could the galaxies have formed “so soon” that they already existed at the time of the BB? All mathematical theories are local linearizations which can become singular when extrapolated. Astrophysics is limited since only position, luminance and spectra can be observed. Flat Land should be studied in introductory physics along with abstract geometry.
At present, the most prudent consideration for everyone should be diversifying their income sources, ones not reliant on government support, particularly given the ongoing global economic challenges. This remains an opportune moment to explore investments in assets like digital currencies, stocks and more. thanks to Davina Norman for her guidance in these fields, her proficiency is outstanding
Wouldn’t the fact that the universe was much more condensed in the beginning that things did happen quicker? Perhaps because of the increased gravity, due to everything being relatively closer that stars and systems all matured much quicker. Leading to super novas, black holes and eventually galaxies?
I would love for someone to explain this to me. If the universe is expanding at a somewhat consistent rate and it all started with the Big Bang at a central point, that would mean it’s a “sphere” expanding outward from its center. The question is this: if we are moving away from the center wouldn’t objects on the other side of the point of origin be accelerating twice as fast away from us as those objects on our side of the starting point? And wouldn’t there be many objects that are in a somewhat parallel track with us that wouldn’t be separating from us except by a very minimal amount, since we’re traveling in the same direction? This, not all objects can be traveling away from each other with a constant speed… from out vantage point. Meaning, if the entire universe is accelerating outward and we’ve measured that at a constant rate from our position in the universe wouldn’t that put us at the very center of the universe? And that’s impossible.
I was really getting into the scientific aspects of this discussion when about five minutes into it an infomercial popped up with a woman talking about how a drug made her husband longer and bigger. Could we have maybe infomercials on this site about educational topics, or maybe animal charities or hair restoration products? These kinds of commercials in the middle of such an important topic sort of trivialize and ruin the whole presentation, like someone throwing up in the punch bowl at a wedding. Thank you.
Until we have independent verification that the red shift is caused by expanding space (ie recessional velocities) we ahould keep the BB theory as a potential model and consider other models. We had observed before JWST that the farther the object the greater the red shift. That is not new. But what we do not know is if this red shift is really caused by recessional velocities. One thing that JWST was not able to confirm was that the optical illusion that you should see in expanding space is not present. Which puts into question the expanding space model.
Awesome stuff. I love open questions and examination. One thing that started to make me think of possible “out side of the box” issues… just a hypothetical. When the military first got long range artillary they were missing the targets… why… they forgot to calculate the rotation of the earth… they were able to shoot far enough that the projectile was airborne long enough to have the earths spin move the target just a little off. Easily compensated for. But if the galaxies are “expanding” … moving… like the earth, or just a calculatable “angled shift”.. .not a straight line…. hard to explain, sorry. Are the “slices of light” from other galaxies in a perfect stream (analog) or broken up and more like (digital) images. Light does not bend… so if we are moving and the light stays in the same spot… my brain needs more information… I just started this thing… o my the rabbit hole is sooo deep… awesome stuff. When you shoot something in motion… you have to “lead the target”… do we get a “lead image” not in sync but in a calculatable staggered delay? Can we look ahead if the “light” is static and all you have to do is find the right angle of light. Can we go backward and find “old light” and see the past like a recorded movie?
The BIG problem we have is we can’t explain our selves and we cant explain what is outside of our selves. It’s like asking a glass vase to explain its self and it’s surroundings. It can’t. Neither can we. We are a collection of atoms that think we can but we can’t. We know nothing and we never will know anything. In the not too distant future Earth and everyone on it will cease to exist.
I have a brand new (quantum chaotic behavior simulation) formula that proves we live in a dual system, but where matter and space act reciprocally conserving energy in a paired system. I know for a fact that we never reach asymptotic levels, something akin to a glass hour-clock spinning on an Euler imaginary axis at a constant rate to make sure we never truly reach a true singularity (at least in time), space can be singular and communicable between times, but not time. This means we can feel the other universe, but not see it, because gravity is just a direction, not a force; the necessary dual opposite of the Big Bang but in slow motion. The Universe’s end can be calculated to the second, and it does match closely to current estimates. It will end (Big Crunch and Ever expansion) at the same time for both universes. Both universe flow in opposite times but share reciprocal spatial dimensions with a different coordinate for what we describe as 0. This is real!
This is near certain: Imagine a universe beginning with a single “particle” of gigantic mass that spontaneously divides into two smaller masses (with a field that obviously must exist to unite them, like, say, primordial electrostatic gravity, a quantum relationship modulo 2). Imagine that over “time” the process of division continues, producing “newer,” lighter “particles” (and forces that unite them “programmed” for future expression within when, per chance, they are irrationally unreconcilable by quantum counting) over “time.” (Note: That cascade of particles is presently observed as “nuclear decay,” where heavier elements spontaneously cascade into a spectrum of heavier-to-lighter elements.) To see how rapidly the NUMBER of observed particles (of increasingly smaller mass) can grow in a short amount of time, just multiply 2 x 2 = repeatedly on a small calculator– in a very short time the numbers go off the scale! Just imagine, then, IN THE PROCESS OF DIVIDING, heavier masses, that eventually form galaxies, divide over time (seemingly coming from “nowhere”) at each epoch of division (and extinction). This process is known as “TOP DOWN cosmology.” In the end, you have present-day smaller galaxies, PLUS the cosmic heat signature of NOW-EXTINCT past elements (including galaxies), known today as the “cosmic microwave background radiation.” (Note: Smaller early galaxies are required by BOTTOM UP big bang cosmology, where predicted smaller primal galaxies form larger galaxies over time, and where the predicted cosmic microwave background radiation would be “smooth;” HOWEVER, the OBSERVED cosmic background radiation is actually “lumpy,” and OBSERVED primal galaxies are actually larger.
On the third day: „Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.”, and on the fourth day: „God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars.”. Nothing about planets, nothing about galaxies… We have to believe only The Holly Scripture, not the deceptions of the enemy, because „All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”. Praise to the Lord, the Almighty, the King of creation!
Oh hey, the characters inside the MMORPG are attempting again to determine the nature of reality by observing the limits of the in-game world. “That’s stupid! No simulation could be this complex!” How many planets is No Man’s Sky able to simulate? And we made that, at the primitive state of our technology, when we’ve only been doing this since the 1970s?
When he says that evidence points to the universe having a beginning, that doesnt make sense to me. We dont know what might be possible before the big bang happened, so whos to say the big bang is the beginning. We’re not even sure what the universe is. A fish doesnt know that its wet. Apparently only a tiny fraction of the universe is physical matter and the rest is something (or many things) we can’t detect or sense. Makes more sense to me to say that the physical universe appears to be acting out a cycle of compression and expansion.
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clearheaded science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about the atoms this much: There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. . . . we must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter. ― Max Planck, The New Science (From Lecture, ‘Das Wesen der Materie’ (The Essence/Nature/Character of Matter), Florence, Italy)
2 things. Would an instrument we used 3.18 billion years later have to not only scan that data present and the expansion. So my example here would be you’re using a camera to catch someone dropping a ball the same time as the camera in theory the camera by any logical reason would be incrementally slower than the ball every time because the ball would have to start first which on an seemingly infinite expanding scale (by our perception) we’d never be able to accurately measure the universe as well as not have technology to do it ever. I’m just saying using the James Webb telescope is the equivalent of using a remote controlled toy boat to measure the entire ocean when it leaves controllable range, humans are just not there yet, we still use combustion to even launch a hunk of metal that we have little to no control over into space. Scientists thinking about space need to literally get their heads out of the sky, we don’t even know 100% about our own oceans let alone anywhere else😂
Ok so he tried to diminish Eric Lerner’s point for taking someone out of context, but he didn’t address any of his arguments against the big bang theory, one of which is galaxy formation, extremely important because the standard model can’t explain galaxy formation without using the dark matter hypothesis. Even if Eric Lerner took her out of context, and she was referring to galaxy formation, it still doesn’t make his point any less valid, because if new observations shake the foundation of how galaxies are formed WITH dark matter, then the model breaks, it becomes obsolete, it can no longer explain or predict phenomena, it would need something fictional for it to work.
If the universe is ‘expanding’ and we look back 13 billion years into the past, isn’t the size of the universe smaller and therefore the unit of measure, (speed of light) being assumed to be the same velocity in a more compact universe as what we see in our modern expanded universe? How do you know the velocity of light isn’t relative to the quantum vacuum pressure of the universe as a whole?
Truth endures all prejudices to the contrary. This means that the truth of science and the truth of religion will eventually come to some agreement. TOP DOWN cosmology gives a greater probability (of 50:50) that this will happen; whereas, BOTTOM UP cosmology ensures that agreement through any understandable mathematical explanation is all but impossible.
These telescopes are great. They simply work with very clear new evidence to force people to make new theories. The simple concept of red shifted light is so easy to understand that we get very solid views way back into the past. So much of this becomes clearly provable where some theories are proven wrong. I guess the big thing lately is, galaxies were more structured longer ago. ok, got it. Nothing really radical going on.
“The universe’s expansion rate appears to differ depending on where you look, which has been called the “Hubble tension”. For example, the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) measures the local expansion rate to be about 73 kilometers per second per megaparsec (km/s/Mpc), while the cosmic microwave background measures a rate of about 68 km/s/Mpc. This discrepancy has not yet been resolved”. There is definitely a problem with the Big Bang model, and all of the naturalists heads are heating up. You might think this isn’t a significant discrepancy, but it is huge because the values should be the same if the model is correct
The challenge within science is that it is not immune to human ego. No scientist wishes to dedicate their career to a belief or theory only to be later disproven and remembered in history as simply “wrong.” This sentiment is reflected in the historical trial of Galileo Galilei for advocating heliocentrism by “the consensus” of his time. I acknowledge numerous concepts as “scientific theory” (that is, as fact). However, I view certain propositions about the Universe as merely hypotheses; they may incline towards ‘fact’ but lack verifiable proof.
(^3^)/ This is an artistic proof of a created universe. When you paint a shadow it’s the opposite color of the object that made the shadow. Nobody knew what the opposite color of white was so the artists avoided painting white on white. The opposite color of white is baby blue and baby pink. The first artist to figure it out was Norman Rockwell. I was the second artist to figure it out. I saw it in the corner of a white room. The lighting was perfect to see it.
What a surprise. We get a much better tool and much better data so we are able to create much better hypotheses and then test them. This is the beauty and power of the scientific method. If the theories change it in no way diminishes the greatness of the prior scientists upon whose shoulders we stand.
Theories in this era change constantly because people become so emotionally atttched to thier beliefs, that when a theory shows flaws they just edit it to a point to where it can still stand. I dont even know what the current theory of Big Bang is anymore. Back when the said nothing exploded into everything by itself without even having itself in the first place was just stupid to begin with. And they keep changing what it was that exploded and how big it was before it exploded. If it existed before it exploded, what made it explode. Thats a key factor if you even want to have a theory of a big bang in the first place. And even then, thats not the start of the universe since it already existed in a smaller state, thats only the beginning of its expansion as we know it. Its like the theory of evolution before they had to seperate it from abiogenesis to keep it afloat. You can rationalize it up until the point where youre forced to deal with how it got there in the first place. And then the most basic element of the theory becomes the most complex part, putting its foot on the neck of everything you thought in the first place.
If you watch, you will see that contrary to the click-bait title, this guy’s point is that the Big Bang theory is solid. The fact that inexplicably large complex spairal galaxies exist at very high red shifts is no major concern to him, nothing to see here, don’t worry your pretty little head Joe. This guy mischaracterized Lerner’s supposed mischarachterization. He tows the LCDM line just like NDTyson. He doesn’t mention that all the evidence that supports LCDM also fits other theories, even more plausibly in some cases, in that CDM and dark energy are not necessarily necessary. He has no interest or inclination to talk about alternative theories because he wants to be respected by institutions that fund research, and all scientific funding is dedicated to LCDM, the theory of the day, like teenagers dedicated to the latest pop star.
Taking a quote out of context isn’t necessarily wrong in the sense that it is used differently than what the original speaker had meant by it. Intentions are not master of result. Although the speaker meant it a totally different way, it’s fair and possibly right that someone could use it with a different perspective lens until what they say is proven wrong.
It may also be possible that the universe has existed in perpetuity, and the bug bang was a localized event. The issue is that our vision and travel limits us in proving and disproving anything. If we could instantly travel to another galaxy we could further our knowledge drastically. We can barely travel to our own moon currently.
♦”Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.” ♦”Only fools revere the supernatural myths just bc a book claims itself to be the holy truth.” ♦”The delusional religious fools are cocksure and the intelligent full of doubt.” ♦”The religious believe by the millions what only lunatics could believe on their own.” ♦”It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ♦”It’s difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.”
Please, can someone who meets with some of these astrophysicists provide some answers for a few things I’ve noticed. First, “the Big Bang”, it’s depicted as an explosion/expansion in a “directed stream”, and usually similar to a funnel, a funnel that is microscopic in the beginning and over time expands to what we see in space currently. So, my question is, if the current mass in space was microscopic, and now is beyond belief, then what affect did that have on space time? My next question is, If our Universe expanded in an explosion which would be in all directions at one time, then why do we see most galaxies as a disk like spiral, rather than a globular object. Or simply, why does one galaxy rotate as a disk, and globular clusters movement differently. Thirdly, if all that we see in the Universe, and all that is out there beyond that is the something, then there has to be an end, or the nothing? Like a bunch of scattered leaves on a large empty pond that has the universe floating on the pond, then who created the Nothing. Like zeros and 1’s, the physical is the ones, and the nothingness is the zero. Just curious.
Our brains cannot comprehend how big the universe is, and where it ends ? and how it started? and how many times it started ? and never will !!! You can all come up with figures, theories, physics, assumptions you like,you’ll always be going around in circles if it takes 4 years for the light from our nearest star to reach us and that’s a stone’s throw away it’s mind blowing! So let’s talk in layman’s terms you’ll never ever know!
Since the universe began with a singularity, if that singularity was a Big Bang, then all of the currently-observable order is required to “self-assemble” from the resultant hot chaos—”allowed” because, though extremely improbable, it is not theoretically prohibited. I don’t believe that! My theory starts with a singularity where everything is connected into a single mass that initially divides into two, like in cell division, but with smaller masses with each division, united by proto-gravity. (Gravity and light were indistinguishable in the beginning.) If in choosing between the two, one of the theories contains a “unwanted message,” that “everything is connected,” then the former theory would be preferred (with blinders on), thereby conceivably allowing a misinformed majority to be manipulated for power and selfish gain by a elite minority. You can “take that to the bank!”
I’m not a scientist but I find this topic fascinating. It seems obvious something happened 13.8 billion years ago, but what I don’t understand is this, why when we point our telescopes in every direction is the furthest we can see galaxies is at a distance of around 45 billion light years, making the universe around 90b light years across? what is beyond this? If we shifted earth’s position to 30 billion light years in one direction instantaneously, would we still see 45b light years worth of galaxies in all directions? would this mean an infinite universe?
There are a few assumptions, I believe, that are required to conclude that the red shift is ultimately explained by a big bang. Could the red shift also be explained by an accelerating speed of light? Terrence McKenna (although he was no physicist) theorized that the speed of light was getting faster. That could mean that we are observing light so far away that it originated at a time when the speed of light was slower. Speed of light changing is just as plausible as an incredibly fast expansion. Another assumption required to conclude that the universe is expanding is that the vacuum of space can not influence the speed of light. Light changes speed in mediums such as glass and water. Perhaps with enough “vacuum” between us and the source of light, the speed of light is decreased. The two assumptions required for the miraculous big bang are that the speed of light is the same today as it was billions/trillions of years ago and that a “vacuum” has no impact on the speed of light (ie. Space is not a perfect vacuum or light that travels far enough through the medium is slowed down). All explanations tell a different story but do not help us to explain the beginning of the universe
I confused, shocking I know, there was absolutely nothing B4 & all of a sudden there is space & planets,stars ?? Can these geniuses smart people just focus on fixing this CRAZZY world we are in right now plz !!?? We are in a major collapse right now ! The past does not matter, our Future does …plz help us …
When he claims that the researcher was taken out of context, that’s dishonest parsing. If she’s worried about galaxy formation that necessarily calls into doubt the big bang. If Galaxies couldn’t form as a result of gravity, which is an indisputable FACT called the three body problem, then something is wrong with the big bang since you suddenly need an intelligent creator to make every single orbit of every single galaxy and solar system.
If you assume there was a big bang and it was 13 billion years ago and the universe has been expanding as a sphere ever since. Then, if we’re assumed to be at the edge of the expanding universe and 13 billion light years away from where the big bang took place, then if you look past where the big bang took place you should be able to see 26 billion years back in time to the other side of the universe.
Why would the universe expands, if it does there should evidences of turbulence because it is expanding at the speed of light in all direction, and there’s no sign of such turbulence, :body-blue-raised-arms:COMMON:face-blue-smiling:. Also, what forces the universe to expand at the speed of light, where is that force come from if it exist?
Nothing is simpler for explaining the beginning of life, consciousness, space-time, and everything else than “one.” The very meaning of “quantum” is the reduction of physical terms, like centimeters, to rational-numbers-only by cancellation of terms. obeying the rules of abstract math while respecting the hidden identities therein. The founders of our country were Deists, who believed that the universe is like a clock set in motion that unwinds to its ultimate conclusion. In quantum dynamics,50:50 (division into two) is the most probable “resonator” in mathematical theory; also explaining the origin of the universe from unity. Every positive prime number thereafter is a resonator of increasingly lesser probability. Trying to imagine the cause of the initial unity forming “us” is the domain of religion and faith, not science.
I don’t know crap but it does seem interesting to me that what he is saying is they know more about the Big Bang than Galaxies. It doesn’t work in my brain that we can study galaxies some which are just forming now and say we don’t understand them and in the next breath say we understand the Big Bang better even though we have no way to observe it. How about a blanket statement of simply we don’t know and we are trying to figure it out.
How fast was the expansion that we see the farthest away from us? Does the observed velocity match the required velocity to leave us with this local expansion today? I would think that the expansion at 0.1 billion years after a big bang (supposedly observed by the James Webb) would need to be very fast, surpassing an infrared shift and microwaves too. The light would look like radiowaves?!
I mean, all of those things are interconnected and using the same or similar mathematic to explain them, so if one important thing, like galaxy formation, fails (like the recent discovery of a galaxy so advanced it should’ve started forming some 4 billion years before Big Bang as per the current mainstream understanding of the universe), then… yeah.
I was honestly waiting for this article. After 5 minutes of perusal the clickbait ‘Webb Telescope debunks BB’ article, I just nodded my head and thought “Dave will debunk this, I’ll just wait for that and then read the references” Thank you for keeping honest science honest and ensuring a more informed audience! Your work is heavily appreciated Dave!
I saw this in a “newspaper”. I’m a simple engineer and programmer, but also interested in other fields. But especially having watched quite a few articles on this website, I knew these crackpots exist and what their methods are. So thanks Prof. for helping me train my bullshit-meter and the clarification!
The scientific community is in a “frenzy”. I’ve met a few folks from the “scientific community”. Even IF confronted with contrary evidence to a theory I would say the strongest emotional response I’ve seen from them is intrigue followed by logical reasoning. Why do people listen to this type of nonsense? I’m worried for the future.
My company built all of the Mirrors and the deployment and focus mechanisms and electronics. I personally helped test some of those electronics at 5 Kelvin (liquid Helium cooling) The Engineers that designed the motor controls and Multiplexer circuits had a VERY short list of components that they were allowed to use. Not many ICs are certified to work that cold. Much of the design was discrete components.
I was waiting for you to make this article! Irrational articles with clickbait thumbnails and titles are my pet peeve lol. It’s genuinely scary how easily people fall for that sort of thing (given the number of views on any of the aforementioned clickbait articles), it’s so dangerous. I’m immensely grateful that there are folks like you who dedicate their time and energy to exposing misinformation, dismantling hoaxes and explaining science in a very straightforward way. Keep up the great job, Dave!
The language is the first giant red flag — “proving the theory didn’t happen” (the “theory” didn’t happen? What? It’s a theory!) I’m an English professor not a science prof and the sloppy language the Flerfers and Plasma nutters push is replete with sloppy and deliberately misleading language that confuses the average reader/viewer. Thank you sir!
Dave my man, always delivering the best content! I too, like many others, have been waiting for this article. I remember perusal that Future Unity article and questioning the legitimacy of its analysis and claims. I tried doing a bit of independent fact-checking and analysis, but with a full-time job, cats and wife that need attention, and other life stuff, I really did not have the time and decided to wait for any further analysis of JSWT’s data from NASA, or other peer-reviewed sources. Thank you for doing what you do, and for taking the time to weed through all the misinformation. It’s just crazy that even in the scientific community, there are those that are interested in leading others astray for their own desire for notoriety. You are the man!
And I keep seeing those recommended articles to this day with clickbait like: “Neil Degrasse Tyson Dectected THIS Inside A Black Hole & It’s TERRIFYING!” By Voyager. It’s nearly 20 minutes long. Am I gonna click it? No. There was also another one saying something like how several structures were found at the end of the galaxy with a thumbnail that indicates that it disproves the Big Bang Theory. So much clickbait that’s like a day or several hours old and probably based on very recent images that they didn’t study, just grabbed on to the first theory they saw for clicks and views… Maybe a follow-up article is needed to address some of these claims or at least something to tell people to stop trying to be “Armchair Astronomers” and to actually study the cosmos instead of clicking on headlines like “JWT dismisses Big Bang thanks to this pic of my dog I took yesterday!”
FOR WEEKS I’ve been in a proxy war of words on that exact article on that website trying to explain how the discoveries of the James Webb did NOT disprove the big bang theory. Over 2k comments and people still chime in thinking that the website is correct and it’s a big conspiracy. Thank you professor Dave. Genuinely appreciate you taking the time to address this misconception of data and observations
The Big Bang Theory remains solid in explaining observable phenomena. Serious competing theories DON’T discredit the Big Bang (it predicted phenomena that were observed decades and decades after, with an amazing accuracy). Cyclic Cosmology (supported by Robert Penrose, 2020 Nobel Prize in Physics) is very interesting one and places Big Bang as process – not the beginning. Now… For all those who prefer magical deities, I quote the journalist H. L. Mencken: “For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.”
I’ve came across “Future Unity” website in the past and I thought it is a some new science website. After a minute of perusal one of their articles I noticed that something is off. So, I check views and the article I was perusal had more than million already and then checked number of comments. There were about 100 of those. This figure was the second thing that struck me, since science websites usually get different ratios (so it might be that they are deleting comments, although this is just a hypothesis based on nothing more than comparision of different websites with similar content). The last thing that turned me completely off was their disclaimer which states that the content they make is for entertainment purposes and that it is based on “facts, rumors and fiction”. So basically an admission that you can’t trust anything they say in articles and that you should double check everything.
Oh, I’m sure Eric Lerner did understand the wordplay – it’s his audience that has no idea of how often scientists and engineers are into in-jokes that only other scientists and engineers will get. Like the Steinlaus in the German Pschyrembel (for non-Germans – the “Steinlaus” was an invention of German comedian Loriot in one of his sketches).
Ive been getting recommended articles from that website (Future Unity) and had been reaching out to content creators to cover them. Their website is very strange. Every article’s thumbnail/title is either misleading clickbait or conspiratorial levels of misinformation. But whats stranger: Every article has round 50-100 parent comments but none of the comments have any replies. Even without replies, many of the comments will have 100s if not 1000s of “upvotes”. All positive feedback. Which to me looks like they’re botting / astroturfing their website. They also seem to try to bring up Elon Musk wherever it’s relevant? They had a article on Nikola Tesla. The title was something like “This Terrifying Prediction Tesla Made Finally Came True”. I clicked it out of curiosity but then it ended up being a 20 minute biography on Tesla’s career with fairly high production value. It never did so much as reference the subject in its title. Instead it ended with the assertion that, thanks to Tesla’s work, Elon Musk was inspired to build his company Tesla, which they claimed is “generating most of the world’s electricity”. It was just this random off-hand comment as if it was such an obvious fact that it didn’t need explaining. Also, some of their content is just straight made up. They don’t always report other grifter’s misinformation.
I kept seeing seeing these reports of JWST disproving The Big Bang Theory and I thought to myself, “So it’s all pixies and demons after all, eh? Cool.” Now along comes Professor Dave to wreck my day. Anything else you want to spoil for me, Professor? I suppose birds are back to being real. I guess that’s a comfort. Is gravity still just a theory? I’d like them to make that one a fact
Omg I’m so happy you did a article made by this Voice Over guy. The first article, This guy does the voice on about 20 different websites and every single article they put out is titled with “exciting new discovery” or “amazing New” blab blah and then every single article is just him going on about already known current science and never actually explains anything having to do with the title at all. … literally same VO guy on soooo many websites that all do and say the same information over and over again constantly spouting about some new life changing discovery….
The only thing I don’t agree with is naming and shaming. We should be attacking the ideas, not the individual. Science will be just fine even in the presence of the few with unsupported hypotheses. I don’t like seeing science infiltrated with politics. The whole point of scientific discovery is to reveal objective truth without the human garbage of notoriety, pride, embarrassment etc.
I’m completely fine with models being debunked. It hurts a little since we’d have to unlearn information, but it hurts even more when people use it fuel their own agenda. I’m just here for the pursuit of truth and knowledge. I’m tired of having overwhelming amount of distrust in people, but that’s the price to pay for quality knowledge.
After taco night one time I knocked on my 12yo nephew’s door to say goodbye. When I went in I was hit with the fartiest air I had ever smelled in my life. He saw my face and gave me a confused look. “Do you seriously not smell that?” He sniffed and said, “I guess I’ve been in here for so long that my brain decided it didn’t smell like farts anymore.” What a powerful allegory
I work in a university physics department and have many friends and colleagues who are cosmologists. To say they are in a “frenzy” is quite an overstatement. In fact, I hadn’t even heard the suggestion that the JWS telescope had provided any data inconsistent with the Big Bang before seeing this (Dave’s, not the original, to be clear) article in my feed.
Hey Dave! You should give potholer54 a shout out in one of your debunking articles. I see you have over 2 million subscribers, and potholer54 has about 250k. He doesn’t monetize his articles, and he’s been doing great internet debunking work for the last 12 years. His website really deserves more attention
i remember seeing that article pop up and just did a google search to see if there’s any mention about this on Science or Nature or any other scientific journal. Nothing but blog posts, random books one guy wants you to buy, and a clickbait article. you’d think that, if there was a chance this could be true, it would’ve gotten much more coverage than this.
The idea that actual scientists would “panic” or that it would cause some type of “crisis” if we were to discover something as profound as incontrovertible proof that the Big Bang is wrong is laughable. Scientists would be beyond excited. It would be the highlight is their careers, because science is a neverending quest for new knowledge. New knowledge is exciting, not concerning.
As a lay-person, I know I could be fooled if I dived head first into today’s “discoveries”. I leave my mind open, but skeptical. This is why I like your website. Because your explanations go over the various graphs and data and what they mean. Thank you for your ongoing battles against misinformation! 🎉 Sub to Professor Dave Explains, everyone!
The clown who owns “Future Unity” also has several other websites like “Destiny”, “Factnomenal”, “Future Space”, “Tech Space”, “Cosmos Lab” and many others that are peddling the same nonsense for clicks. It is outrageous how many websites they have made and only serves to remind me of Youtube’s baffling decision to hide dislikes
I was looking at that website “Future Unity” that you played in the beginning, I’ve got no idea why youtube lets such a website exist. All the thumbnails are misleading clickbait, and the contents are full of multi-level jumping to conclusions e.g. “what makes this hypothesis (of grb060614 being a white hole) so strong is that scientists have no other explanation for what happened.” on a vid titled “It’s Reality! Scientist’s FINALLY Discovered First Ever White Hole!”
What they picture: “Oh no, something has disproven the big bang theory! We must cover it up!” What would actually happen: “Hey, doesn’t this disagree with some part of the big bang theory? Hell yes, let’s figure out what’s going on so we can win a Nobel prize! Publish this data quick before someone trumps us!”
Beautiful how people like you and leonardo (whose comment you showed in the article) take the time to debunk this nonsense and dont let it spread to the easily decepted. Shouldn’t be necessary in a perfect world but thanks for doing your part. Unfortunately the people susceptible to this bonobo don’t watch your website
I keep seeing Recommended articles from places like Cosmos Lab and the like with clickbait headlines like “JWT discovers structure!” or “JWT discovers something that violates physics!” or “Something on Jupiter scared Scientists!” I’m going to guess they’re all dumb clickbait and/or made by conspiracy theory websites who are going off half-cocked after seeing the title of some NASA paper?
I’ve never heard of plasma cosmology before and I’m no expert (my dad was an astrophysicist, so I know more than average, but that’s it) but the moment I saw that article saying JWST had disproved the big bang, I knew something was wrong about it. First off being that, if it were true, I’d expect it to be all over the news and not just on some random youtube article! But it was the complete lack of mention of the CMBR that made me dubious. The article (the one with 4 million views that seemed to kick all this off) didn’t provide any explanation as to how that would exist if the big bang was wrong. Glad to find this article confirming that it was all pseudoscience nonsense and explaining exactly why. You’ve got to laugh at the irony of the charlatan behind it all being called “Lerner.”
This applies to so many other areas of concern, medicine,.politics and education. There needs to be a strong leader who can inspire the lay person to higher education. As JFK stated, :We choose to do it because it is hard” education and learner are hard. We need to be inspired to do hard things. Prof Dave you’re one individual who does inspire. Keep fighting the good fight.
I like how Professor Dave dumbs down the science so that mere mortals, like myself, can understand it and I still have to look things up to understand the dumb down version. ☺ If it was the ”full fat” version with all the technical details, he may as well talk in Arabic to me. People understand very complicated things far better than I do, who knew? NOT Eric Unlerner that’s for sure. 😆