The Big Bang Hypothesis is contradicted by the new James Webb Space Telescope images

Yappi

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

Why do the JWST’s images inspire panic among cosmologists? And what theory’s predictions are they contradicting? The papers don’t actually say. The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.”
 
 



The censorship related to all this, per the article you posted, is akin to the censorship and ostracization of those who scientifically dismantle the notions of man-made climate change.

At some point, the lunacy must stop, and real science must be allowed to continually evolve; it is rarely, if ever, 'settled'.
 
The censorship related to all this, per the article you posted, is akin to the censorship and ostracization of those who scientifically dismantle the notions of man-made climate change.

At some point, the lunacy must stop, and real science must be allowed to continually evolve; it is rarely, if ever, 'settled'.
Apples and oranges. Take it over to the DB forum hack.
 
I love this stuff. It reminds me of how small we really are.

Our galaxy has over 100 thousand million stars. It is estimated that there are over 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Those numbers are absolutely staggering to the point of uncomprehension. The universe is an estimated 14 billion years old. The odds are overwhelming in favor of intelligent life in our own galaxy let alone elsewhere in the universe. But this leads to the Fermi Paradox, which asks if the odds are so favorable why have they not found us? Are we so infantile in our intelligence that we simply cannot understand? If they do exist and can travel great distances have they chosen to leave us alone? Or does the recipe have to be just right in order for intelligent life to get to the point of actually being able to travel vast distances through space to the point it has not happened? erectus first appeared 2 million years ago and modern sapiens 300,000 years ago. Earth is 4.5 billion years old which means man is essentially a blip on the radar and odds are we will get wiped out, at some point, by a planet killing asteroid or comet or we will end ourselves before getting to the point of interstellar space travel.
 
I love this stuff. It reminds me of how small we really are.

Our galaxy has over 100 thousand million stars. It is estimated that there are over 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Those numbers are absolutely staggering to the point of uncomprehension. The universe is an estimated 14 billion years old. The odds are overwhelming in favor of intelligent life in our own galaxy let alone elsewhere in the universe. But this leads to the Fermi Paradox, which asks if the odds are so favorable why have they not found us? Are we so infantile in our intelligence that we simply cannot understand? If they do exist and can travel great distances have they chosen to leave us alone? Or does the recipe have to be just right in order for intelligent life to get to the point of actually being able to travel vast distances through space to the point it has not happened? erectus first appeared 2 million years ago and modern sapiens 300,000 years ago. Earth is 4.5 billion years old which means man is essentially a blip on the radar and odds are we will get wiped out, at some point, by a planet killing asteroid or comet or we will end ourselves before getting to the point of interstellar space travel.

They have found us and are here. ?
 
It's certainly interesting but practically not that meaningful. I don't think it's as interesting as finding planets, but we have to wait for the next round of mega telescopes for that... if the astronomer community can convince NASA to build telescopes with 20ft mirrors.
 
we have to wait for the next round of mega telescopes for that... if the astronomer community can convince NASA to build telescopes with 20ft mirrors.
the science is almost never truly settled.
Either of you read "Space" by James Michener? There's a discussion at the end of the book between two characters about building a huge space telescope.

I may have the details wrong, but I think it was about sending a large magnifying lens unit some huge distance in one direction, and sending a focusing lens unit same distance in the other direction, and how combining and focusing the two lenses would give such a long focal length, astronomers could physically view some ungodly distance.

Just wondering if anyone has ever tried doing that, and if it could outperform Hubble or Webb.

(Probably should've posted this on lotty's Mars thread. :cool: )
 
I love this stuff. It reminds me of how small we really are.

Our galaxy has over 100 thousand million stars. It is estimated that there are over 100 billion galaxies in the universe. Those numbers are absolutely staggering to the point of uncomprehension. The universe is an estimated 14 billion years old. The odds are overwhelming in favor of intelligent life in our own galaxy let alone elsewhere in the universe. But this leads to the Fermi Paradox, which asks if the odds are so favorable why have they not found us? Are we so infantile in our intelligence that we simply cannot understand? If they do exist and can travel great distances have they chosen to leave us alone? Or does the recipe have to be just right in order for intelligent life to get to the point of actually being able to travel vast distances through space to the point it has not happened? erectus first appeared 2 million years ago and modern sapiens 300,000 years ago. Earth is 4.5 billion years old which means man is essentially a blip on the radar and odds are we will get wiped out, at some point, by a planet killing asteroid or comet or we will end ourselves before getting to the point of interstellar space travel.

100 thousand million is a 100 billion. Really smart humans can only grasp 500,000, the mind groups and sizes after that. They have found us in some form, the evidence is overwhelming and highly suppressed. IMO they don't necessarily need to travel in a physical form and I would say most humans including myself do not understand. Standard human timelines and highly intelligent life on this planet are scientifically in flux.
 
Top