The Big Bang didn't happen Oops! Big news here. The big bang didn't happen. The James Webb Telescope proved it. And it's going to be covered up by a deafening silence from experts? Oh, no! How are we going to correct our mistakes and learn from them?!
I am saying this, as my factual assessment, so I hope you will not take it personally, but you seem to not be a very critical reviewer of the things you see online, if they support your own perspective. I guess most of us, though, to varying degrees, are guilty of that human flaw. In this case, your linked article does not quote any professionals, upon which it is basing it's conclusion. I frankly did not read far enough, to see what sort of explanation, as such, they would offer, because the first expert who they cited, merely tweeting something about having been wrong, her entire career. There was no context given for this quote so, as any reader who is not gullible would do, I went to the Professor's Twitter account, from which came, the cited tweet. https://mobile.twitter.com/AkAstronomy Here is an early tweet, from the part of her account, to which I was brought, by the article's link: Prof. Allison Kirkpatrick @AkAstronomy Aug 12 Oh dear, apparently there are conspiracy theories about JWST images? It, therefore, was clear that the article was already misrepresenting things, which made it pointless to continue reading.
The article did link to a scientific article titled "Panic!" in the first paragraph. You didn't see it because of the recent web trend not to underline links anymore. I thought that gave the story some weight. I also followed some of the links to news articles, and, from what I read, there was a convincing argument that the JWST discovered a lot of very well-formed galaxies in the early universe and hints that there are even older galaxies in the data.
Crackpot BS. And his crackpot bs book came out in 1992. It has nothing to do with the Webb telescope which JUST went online. There has been no time for any useful data collection or analysis to be done.
In science we look for papers published in highly respected journals like Science, or Nature. He has a freakin BA in physics, not even a BS, much less a Ph.D.. He's a crackpot.
Because it's been over 60 years since Albert Einstein passed, and we've been pretty stagnant in the physics sphere ever since. Some would say there's nothing more to discover, but they're wrong. Not only is there more to discover, but we've been maleficently held back by certain hidden areas of the government and military! And, it's because of that, that I will post news if I think there is reason to believe that it's ahead of the curve.
Well, science moves forward with the gravestones of the old guard. It takes a long time for the old paradigm to shift and correct the mistakes of past big egos. That said he might be a crackpot since it hasn't been defined yet what a redshift of 20 might mean. But, if the Astronomers were looking for stars and galaxies in the 8 redshift range, then we'll have to see if the definition and discovery of 20 redshift actually materializes. In any event, the JWST has put the models of early galaxy formation to bed. It's time for a new round of theories. That's not in dispute.
News? This is 30 year old junk science. It is not "news", it is not even "science". As always, you just vomit up a bunch of nonsense. Oh, and the JWST has not disproved the Big Bang. All it has done is shown that galaxies and stars formed more quickly after the Big Bang than previously believed. The time before the universe cooled enough to allow star formation was once at 500 million years, and now it sits at 300 million years. As before that, all we had was the HDF and MBR to determine how old the first galaxies were. As I said, you keep posting junk science. From worthless sources.
That first study mentioned in the article concerns galaxy morphology for highly red shifted galaxies. There is NO evidence in the study that suggests the "panic" concerned the big bang's existence. It sounds more like a comment on finding that JWST images show that some analysis of HST images concerning galaxy morphology is wrong for specific reasons. That's a big deal to those who study galaxy morphology. Let's remember that this does not affect measurements of how fast this universe is expanding today. And, the "Big Bang" expansion was stupendously faster than what we see today. That period ended at about the 10^−33 second mark. There are lots of non-scientist, conspiracy theory IDIOTS that want to say that cosmologists don't know what they are talking about. The truth will come out. It always does.
If you think Lerner is a crackpot maybe you should offer evidence of it rather than just denigrating his credentials. That's a really lame responce to the OP.
He claims to be "Chief Scientist" and doesn't even have a BS??? Another clue is that he completely flubbed the "Panic" comment by a real live scientist. Another clue is that he includes support for the idea that the universe is not expanding today!! Sorry. Nobody should be taking that guy's word on ANYTHING without checking it out with a real scientist. And, that raises serious questions about the organization he claims to lead, too.
it's possible the bang keeps banging, much we do not know yet, that said, this paper really says little to disprove a big bang (expansion) we do know the world is not flat and that a God did not create the world in 7 days though...
Bull. The first one is the space shuttle that blew up. That was an engineering issue. In fact, there were engineers who stated that the launch should NOT happen, because of weather and the likely brittleness of the o-rings that gave way - causing the disaster. Charging that to scientists is not legit. --- Then came the thalidomide problem. That WAS a serious problem, and today we have FAR more serious testing regimes to ensure that science based medicine is getting it right. The real question should be, why do we allow ZERO testing of homeopathic solutions? -- Piltdown? Sure, that was definitely a case of fabricating science. The result is that it was caught. What are the checks that cause the statements of anti-science to be caught and publicly rebuked? Expecting there to be zero cases of fraud is ridiculous. What such cases have caused science to do is to establish process of review, duplication, and publication, etc. I could go on. Clearly, this article doesn't know CRAP about what science IS, let alone anything else.
??? You're not getting the drift here. You don't know who I am. And if I told you, you should not believe it. I can give ideas on where to look for information, though. Then, you have to do the work of going there and reading it and you can then cite what you have learned!
Opinions differ, as does yours. Really? Because that's what MSM gave you, so, you believe that? Open-mindedness is a trait of intelligence. Please do, I have all day and love the entertainment.
