Has the James Web finally killed the big bang theory?

[EarthScienceguy]

The James Web space telescope has recently discovered 6 smooth, large and old galaxies which are said to be 300 million years after the big bang. The big bang theory says that this is not possible.

What theory will materialists go to next?

Is the James Web confirming that God created the Universe?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #9]

By the same token, if there are holes in the Big Bang theory, it doesn't mean there definitely is a god, anymore than it being true means there definitely isn't.

Never said it did. The proof for God is a different argument.

[boatsnguitars]

https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner

Wow... Compelling...

Good gravy, get a life.

[Miles]

[Replying to Miles in post #4]

Creationists have also said what the JWT discovered would be found.
Why should anyone care what creationists say?

Because that is called a prediction and it is successful predictions that indicate the strength of a theory.

Actually, I have no idea what "Creationists have also said what the JWT discovered would be found." refers to or what theory you're talking about. I only know from past experiences with creationists that what they have said has never been worth listening to.

.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #6]

So, the next time you read someone saying that the Big Bang didn't happen, or that climate change isn't happening, don't take for granted what they're saying. Politely ask them for their evidence and hold it to the highest standards, just like a scientist would.

Ok, let's try this again. My evidence is that there was discovered 6 huge old galaxies 300 million years according to deep time theory from the big bang. Big Bang cosmology cannot explain these galaxies. The Big Bang theory predicts that population III stars should be just starting to form, it also predicts that we should see no heavy elements and these galaxies should not be smooth. None of which we have observed. That would mean the falsification of a theory. This is but one of the problems with the big bang theory.

• Eric Lerner: Saying that the Big Bang theory is a well-confirmed theory is very much like saying that the emperor’s clothes are beautiful. It’s something that lots of people agree on because ultimately their jobs and income depend on it. But it’s not something that’s backed up by scientific evidence.
  
  Whenever and wherever you look at what the Big Bang hypothesis predicts, and you compare with observations, then in almost every single case you get a mass of contradictions.
  
  This theory – despite its widespread support in the cosmology community – is like Swiss cheese, full of holes. And yet the response of the cosmology community as a whole is to say, “Each of these cases is an individual anomaly. Yeah, we’re still working on it, but, you know, look at all the other things that the theory gets right.”
  
  In the paper that I’ve just submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, we look at 18 large, independent data sets of observations, and in 17 of these, the predictions of the Big Bang theory are clearly contradicted by the data.
  
  JT: Could you name some?
  
  EL: For example, the universe contains objects that are 10 times older than when the Big Bang was supposed to have happened.
  
  The Big Bang’s predictions of the distribution of the light elements in the Universe are completely wrong – orders of magnitude wrong.
  
  Example of contradictions to the Big Bang theory: The abundance of the light element lithium plotted against iron abundance in parts per billion for the 26 known stars with the least contamination from earlier stars. The Big Bang-predicted range of values is shown by the red solid lines, a factor of 20 too high compared with observed values.
  
  The evidence against dark matter, whose existence is postulated by Big Bang theory, is overwhelming.
  
  The Big Bang theory’s predictions concerning the cosmic microwave background have multiple contradictions, as do the theory’s predictions concerning so-called inflation and dark energy.
  
  In each case, observations are based on many papers, published by many different groups of researchers in leading peer-reviewed journals over a period of years – or even decades.
  
  One of the most damning cases of false predictions by the Big Bang theory concerns the brightness of galaxies. Newer research tested one of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory: namely that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances.
  
  In the space around us, on Earth, in the solar system and the Milky Way, as similar objects get farther away, they look fainter and smaller. Their surface brightness, to use a technical term– the ratio of their apparent brightness to their apparent area – remains a constant.
  
  In contrast, the Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding universe objects actually should appear fainter but bigger. In addition, the light would be stretched as the universe expanded, further dimming the light. So, in an expanding universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times less surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.
  
  But that is not what observations show. Researchers have carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical, just as one would expect with no expansion. https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... r-happened

Do you have an article that actually addresses the evidence?

Do you have anything to say related to actual science? If you've proved the Big Bang false, go get your Nobel.

Same old tired Creationist crap trap. Dunning-Kruger strikes again.

[Clownboat]

Ok, let's try this again. My evidence is that there was discovered 6 huge old galaxies 300 million years according to deep time theory from the big bang. Big Bang cosmology cannot explain these galaxies.

Let's play a game for a minute and pretend that the big bang theory has been shown to be incorrect.

What mechanism would you propose that better explains how our universe came about and for what reason do you propose such a mechanism?

[Miles]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #6]

So, the next time you read someone saying that the Big Bang didn't happen, or that climate change isn't happening, don't take for granted what they're saying. Politely ask them for their evidence and hold it to the highest standards, just like a scientist would.

Ok, let's try this again. My evidence is that there was discovered 6 huge old galaxies 300 million years according to deep time theory from the big bang. Big Bang cosmology cannot explain these galaxies. The Big Bang theory predicts that population III stars should be just starting to form, it also predicts that we should see no heavy elements and these galaxies should not be smooth. None of which we have observed. That would mean the falsification of a theory. This is but one of the problems with the big bang theory.

• Eric Lerner: Saying that the Big Bang theory is a well-confirmed theory is very much like saying that the emperor’s clothes are beautiful. It’s something that lots of people agree on because ultimately their jobs and income depend on it. But it’s not something that’s backed up by scientific evidence.
  
  Whenever and wherever you look at what the Big Bang hypothesis predicts, and you compare with observations, then in almost every single case you get a mass of contradictions.
  
  This theory – despite its widespread support in the cosmology community – is like Swiss cheese, full of holes. And yet the response of the cosmology community as a whole is to say, “Each of these cases is an individual anomaly. Yeah, we’re still working on it, but, you know, look at all the other things that the theory gets right.”
  
  In the paper that I’ve just submitted to a peer-reviewed journal, we look at 18 large, independent data sets of observations, and in 17 of these, the predictions of the Big Bang theory are clearly contradicted by the data.
  
  JT: Could you name some?
  
  EL: For example, the universe contains objects that are 10 times older than when the Big Bang was supposed to have happened.
  
  The Big Bang’s predictions of the distribution of the light elements in the Universe are completely wrong – orders of magnitude wrong.
  
  Example of contradictions to the Big Bang theory: The abundance of the light element lithium plotted against iron abundance in parts per billion for the 26 known stars with the least contamination from earlier stars. The Big Bang-predicted range of values is shown by the red solid lines, a factor of 20 too high compared with observed values.
  
  The evidence against dark matter, whose existence is postulated by Big Bang theory, is overwhelming.
  
  The Big Bang theory’s predictions concerning the cosmic microwave background have multiple contradictions, as do the theory’s predictions concerning so-called inflation and dark energy.
  
  In each case, observations are based on many papers, published by many different groups of researchers in leading peer-reviewed journals over a period of years – or even decades.
  
  One of the most damning cases of false predictions by the Big Bang theory concerns the brightness of galaxies. Newer research tested one of the striking predictions of the Big Bang theory: namely that ordinary geometry does not work at great distances.
  
  In the space around us, on Earth, in the solar system and the Milky Way, as similar objects get farther away, they look fainter and smaller. Their surface brightness, to use a technical term– the ratio of their apparent brightness to their apparent area – remains a constant.
  
  In contrast, the Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding universe objects actually should appear fainter but bigger. In addition, the light would be stretched as the universe expanded, further dimming the light. So, in an expanding universe the most distant galaxies should have hundreds of times less surface brightness than similar nearby galaxies, making them actually undetectable with present-day telescopes.
  
  But that is not what observations show. Researchers have carefully compared the size and brightness of about a thousand nearby and extremely distant galaxies. Contrary to the prediction of the Big Bang theory, they found that the surface brightnesses of the near and far galaxies are identical, just as one would expect with no expansion. https://www.scienceandnonduality.com/ar ... r-happened

Do you have an article that actually addresses the evidence?

Interesting that you cite Eric Lerner, a science writer with only a BA (bachelor of arts ) degree as some kind of what, expert?

"Eric J. Lerner (born May 31, 1947) is an American popular science writer, and independent plasma researcher. He wrote the 1991 book The Big Bang Never Happened, which advocates Hannes Alfvén's plasma cosmology instead of the Big Bang theory. He is founder, president, and chief scientist of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc.

Lerner received a BA in physics from Columbia University and started as a graduate student in physics at the University of Maryland, but left after a year due to his dissatisfaction with the mathematical rather than experimental approach there. He then pursued a career in popular science writing."
[IOW he couldn't cut the math]
source: Wikipedia

And, just what is this vaunted Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc of which Lerner is founder, president, and chief scientist? Let's take a look.

Issue: Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc.
"Lawrenceville Plasma Physics Inc
Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. doing business as LPPFusion, operates as a technology research, consulting, and communication firm. The Company specializes in the applications of plasma physics, including fusion power, and X-ray sources for infrastructure inspection. LPPFusion serves customers in the United States."
source


Issue: Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc. address
128 Lincoln Blvd, Middlesex, NJ, United States, New Jersey
source

Issue: LPPFusion address:
128 Lincoln Blvd. Middlesex, NJ 08846-1022
source

And what does 128 Lincoln Blvd. Middlesex, NJ 08846-1022 look like?





Cool. The Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Inc, aka :PPFusion, operates out of your Friendly Self Storage Center with plastic flowers out front. Well, at least it's friendly.

.

[brunumb]

In contrast, the Big Bang theory tells us that in an expanding universe objects actually should appear fainter but bigger. In addition, the light would be stretched as the universe expanded, further dimming the light.

This bit caught my attention. Please explain how light would be stretched and consequently become dimmer.

[Gracchus]

The "Big Bang" theory is based on the premise that the universe is expanding. So, we are looking out, in all directions, at a smaller universe? Just think about that! If the local spacetime were collapsing, that would also produce a red shift, as spacetime would be scaled down, and what started far away as one frequency would be perceived as a lower frequency in a strong gravitational field.

[boatsnguitars]

The James Web space telescope has recently discovered 6 smooth, large and old galaxies which are said to be 300 million years after the big bang. The big bang theory says that this is not possible.

What theory will materialists go to next?

Is the James Web confirming that God created the Universe?

It's amazing how quickly anti-science people suddenly accept science when they think it undermines science, especially when it's salacious headlines and not actual science...

It's so much easier to be ignorant and opinionated than informed and thoughtful. Which is why religion is so popular: anyone can spout their ignorant opinion and think they have equal footing with the millions of scientists standing on the shoulders of giants, over the years. One hick in rural Kansas with a brain fart can decide that they know more about Cosmology than all the scientists in the history of the world.

[oldbadger]

The James Web space telescope has recently discovered 6 smooth, large and old galaxies which are said to be 300 million years after the big bang. The big bang theory says that this is not possible.

What theory will materialists go to next?

Is the James Web confirming that God created the Universe?

Are said to be?..........
We dont have exact dates for fairly local stars like Betelgeuse, you know.