No Big Bang

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
User avatar
Fred
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7611
Location: Zion

No Big Bang

Post by Fred »

Now they say that the big bang could not have happened.

User avatar
mes5464
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 29570
Location: Seneca, South Carolina

Re: No Big Bang

Post by mes5464 »

The Thunderbolts Project is vendicated.

https://www.youtube.com/user/ThunderboltsProject

See plasma universe or electric universe theory.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: No Big Bang

Post by Durzan »

Fred wrote: September 7th, 2022, 9:02 pm Now they say that the big bang could not have happened.
Misleading clickbait to begin with.

A somewhat better source:

User avatar
darknesstolight
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3865

Re: No Big Bang

Post by darknesstolight »

Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:22 am
Fred wrote: September 7th, 2022, 9:02 pm Now they say that the big bang could not have happened.
Misleading clickbait to begin with.

A somewhat better source:
What makes your source better? What makes it misleading clickbait?

...

Bronco73idi
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3623

Re: No Big Bang

Post by Bronco73idi »

The death of the Big Bang should have been in the early 90’s. The Big Bang is around because the beast uses it so we can worship man ie evolution.

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: No Big Bang

Post by Durzan »

darknesstolight wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:46 am
Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:22 am
Fred wrote: September 7th, 2022, 9:02 pm Now they say that the big bang could not have happened.
Misleading clickbait to begin with.

A somewhat better source:
What makes your source better? What makes it misleading clickbait?

...
Because he’s clarifying the fact that “the Big Bang may not have happened” is false clickbait to begin with, among other things.

Bronco73idi
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3623

Re: No Big Bang

Post by Bronco73idi »

Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 12:58 pm
darknesstolight wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:46 am
Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:22 am
Fred wrote: September 7th, 2022, 9:02 pm Now they say that the big bang could not have happened.
Misleading clickbait to begin with.

A somewhat better source:
What makes your source better? What makes it misleading clickbait?

...
Because he’s clarifying the fact that “the Big Bang may not have happened” is false clickbait to begin with, among other things.
There is no evidence that it did happen!

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: No Big Bang

Post by Durzan »

Bronco73idi wrote: September 8th, 2022, 3:06 pm
Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 12:58 pm
darknesstolight wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:46 am
Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:22 am

Misleading clickbait to begin with.

A somewhat better source:
What makes your source better? What makes it misleading clickbait?

...
Because he’s clarifying the fact that “the Big Bang may not have happened” is false clickbait to begin with, among other things.
There is no evidence that it did happen!
Not exactly… but you can believe as you will. :3

Bronco73idi
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3623

Re: No Big Bang

Post by Bronco73idi »

Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 3:07 pm
Bronco73idi wrote: September 8th, 2022, 3:06 pm
Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 12:58 pm
darknesstolight wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:46 am

What makes your source better? What makes it misleading clickbait?

...
Because he’s clarifying the fact that “the Big Bang may not have happened” is false clickbait to begin with, among other things.
There is no evidence that it did happen!
Not exactly… but you can believe as you will. :3
I have read the papers, have you?

If we believe the Pharisees are we not damned to hell?

Bronco73idi
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3623

Re: No Big Bang

Post by Bronco73idi »

darknesstolight wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:46 am
Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:22 am
Fred wrote: September 7th, 2022, 9:02 pm Now they say that the big bang could not have happened.
Misleading clickbait to begin with.

A somewhat better source:
What makes your source better? What makes it misleading clickbait?

...
Next these Sadducee’s are going to tell us Job didn’t see a Sauropod 🦕!

User avatar
darknesstolight
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3865

Re: No Big Bang

Post by darknesstolight »

Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 12:58 pm
darknesstolight wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:46 am
Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:22 am
Fred wrote: September 7th, 2022, 9:02 pm Now they say that the big bang could not have happened.
Misleading clickbait to begin with.

A somewhat better source:
What makes your source better? What makes it misleading clickbait?

...
Because he’s clarifying the fact that “the Big Bang may not have happened” is false clickbait to begin with, among other things.
The source is better because the source is saying that the big bang did happen?

That doesn't sound like it answers the question.

You did say that your source is better. So that's what I'm asking about, what makes it better, not different.

A source - the originator of an idea or the place or person who provided the information.

Restating your assertion you said that the place or person that is supplying the information you are referring to is more reliable/better than the place or person the OP is getting their information from.

Restating my question: What makes the place or person you are getting your information from better?

You are contentending it is clickbait but you haven't shown why.

...

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: No Big Bang

Post by Durzan »

darknesstolight wrote: September 8th, 2022, 8:44 pm
Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 12:58 pm
darknesstolight wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:46 am
Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:22 am

Misleading clickbait to begin with.

A somewhat better source:
What makes your source better? What makes it misleading clickbait?

...
Because he’s clarifying the fact that “the Big Bang may not have happened” is false clickbait to begin with, among other things.
The source is better because the source is saying that the big bang did happen?

That doesn't sound like it answers the question.

You did say that your source is better. So that's what I'm asking about, what makes it better, not different.

A source - the originator of an idea or the place or person who provided the information.

Restating your assertion you said that the place or person that is supplying the information you are referring to is more reliable/better than the place or person the OP is getting their information from.

Restating my question: What makes the place or person you are getting your information from better?

You are contentending it is clickbait but you haven't shown why.

...
Anton actually explains astronomy subjects in a way that’s easy for the the common person to understand.

In this video, He explains that the given studies don’t disprove the Big Bang; rather it points out that some things weren’t expected. Nothing about it however trashes what’s known as the Big Bang Theory. He stays as neutral as he can and tries not to over exaggerate findings like many media sources do when it comes to science, who often say things to make the news report more sensational or seem more exciting.

Saying that this paper disproved Big Bang theory is essentially using extreme hyperbole to draw attention to the news article, when in reality, that is quite far from the truth. Just watch the video.

The articles that led others to assume that were actually talking about how the formation of early galaxies was a bit different than originally predicted.

User avatar
darknesstolight
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3865

Re: No Big Bang

Post by darknesstolight »

Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 9:10 pm
darknesstolight wrote: September 8th, 2022, 8:44 pm
Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 12:58 pm
darknesstolight wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:46 am

What makes your source better? What makes it misleading clickbait?

...
Because he’s clarifying the fact that “the Big Bang may not have happened” is false clickbait to begin with, among other things.
The source is better because the source is saying that the big bang did happen?

That doesn't sound like it answers the question.

You did say that your source is better. So that's what I'm asking about, what makes it better, not different.

A source - the originator of an idea or the place or person who provided the information.

Restating your assertion you said that the place or person that is supplying the information you are referring to is more reliable/better than the place or person the OP is getting their information from.

Restating my question: What makes the place or person you are getting your information from better?

You are contentending it is clickbait but you haven't shown why.

...
Anton actually explains astronomy subjects in a way that’s easy for the the common person to understand.

In this video, He explains that the given studies don’t disprove the Big Bang; rather it points out that some things weren’t expected. Nothing about it however trashes what’s known as the Big Bang Theory. He stays as neutral as he can and tries not to over exaggerate findings like many media sources do when it comes to science, who often say things to make the news report more sensational or seem more exciting.

Saying that this paper disproved Big Bang theory is essentially using extreme hyperbole to draw attention to the news article, when in reality, that is quite far from the truth. Just watch the video.

The articles that led others to assume that were actually talking about how the formation of early galaxies was a bit different than originally predicted.
I did watch the video thank you for the invitation.

That's great and also it doesn't sound like you have any reason why your source is better or even somewhat better.

The OP didn't sound hyperbolic. It made good points that are factual as far as what new telescope has seen and made inferences and conclusions off of that.

That's not hyperbole that's using data or evidence to support an assertion.

It sounds like the idea of a Big Bang being true is important to you in some way as in it has to be true for your world view.

But hey it could be hyperbole its just so far nothing you've provided backs up the assertion. Its just circular.

...

User avatar
darknesstolight
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3865

Re: No Big Bang

Post by darknesstolight »

lol

It sounds and looks like to me from watching other videos that many scientists are in denial and don't even want to consider the idea that their favorite theory is wrong. Nope, not listening, no way!

lol

Anyway looks like at the least the Big Bang theory is in trouble.

...

User avatar
Durzan
The Lord's Trusty Maverick
Posts: 3728
Location: Standing between the Light and the Darkness.

Re: No Big Bang

Post by Durzan »


User avatar
darknesstolight
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3865

Re: No Big Bang

Post by darknesstolight »

Durzan wrote: September 9th, 2022, 8:13 am
Now that dude is a pretty bad source because he has a demonstrated bias and prejudice and allows his elitism to color his world view. That is why I think your source here is far worse than your first video.

That's before I've watched the video.

...

User avatar
darknesstolight
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3865

Re: No Big Bang

Post by darknesstolight »

haha Tyson is a douche

Like I predicted

...

User avatar
MikeMaillet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1597
Location: Ingleside, Ontario

Re: No Big Bang

Post by MikeMaillet »

I think that deGrasse needs to smoke more grass. This guy is a shill for "the maaaaan", man. Seriously, this guy is a schmuck and it would be best to ignore him. He's in the same league as Dr. Oz except not as smart.

Mike Maillet
Ingleside, Ontario

User avatar
MikeMaillet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1597
Location: Ingleside, Ontario

Re: No Big Bang

Post by MikeMaillet »

deGrasse.jpg
deGrasse.jpg (35.2 KiB) Viewed 549 times

User avatar
darknesstolight
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3865

Re: No Big Bang

Post by darknesstolight »

Obviously the scientific community does not believe the Big Bang has been debunked, and that is clickbait in that sense, however this is not just some random, "every six months their is a newsflash that BB debunked" (lol), claim.

If the James Webb Telescope is real and it has observed galaxies that are well formed very early on after BB, are large, or ones that even exist beyond when the BB occurred, well clearly the model Tyson is saying isn't going anywhere has some major issues and there will need to be major revisions and even more mysteries, etc. It counts as evidence that at the least BB as we understand it is wrong or at most that BB is utter rubbish. It's in that class of evidence.

Tyson is famous for being dismissive to anything that he hasn't considered.

I look forward to more data because I expect that the findings so far and their implications will only be strengthened.

...

User avatar
Niemand
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 13999

Re: No Big Bang

Post by Niemand »

Fred Hoyle, one of the big proponents of the Steady State theory said that he felt the Big Bang resembled religious creation ideas.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8242
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Re: No Big Bang

Post by creator »

Fred wrote: September 7th, 2022, 9:02 pm Now they say that the big bang could not have happened.
Of course they were wrong.
mes5464 wrote: September 8th, 2022, 5:58 amThe Thunderbolts Project is vindicated. See plasma universe or electric universe theory.
There is a lot of good stuff there but even they are limited in their scope and mostly focused on materialism/physical reality (not exploring spiritual reality). I also don't trust Immanuel Velikovsky, which they base a lot of their theories on. There are others that I think have better theories, based in actual spiritual science.

User avatar
ParticleMan
captain of 100
Posts: 723

Re: No Big Bang

Post by ParticleMan »

"Plasma Universe & Electric Universe, What's the Difference?" by See the Pattern:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JK-IGi9wJHY

User avatar
mes5464
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 29570
Location: Seneca, South Carolina

Re: No Big Bang

Post by mes5464 »

creator wrote: September 9th, 2022, 1:52 pm There is a lot of good stuff there but even they are limited in their scope and mostly focused on materialism/physical reality (not exploring spiritual reality). I also don't trust Immanuel Velikovsky, which they base a lot of their theories on. There are others that I think have better theories, based in actual spiritual science.
This is true. As long as science continues to deny the existence of God, they will forever flounder and not achieve the whole truth. Only God can bring you to the whole true, and like Abraham, He is willing to teach us a lot of things if we will only live worthy of the knowledge we seek.

User avatar
SempiternalHarbinger
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1982
Location: Salt Lake City, Ut

Re: No Big Bang

Post by SempiternalHarbinger »

Durzan wrote: September 8th, 2022, 7:22 am
Fred wrote: September 7th, 2022, 9:02 pm Now they say that the big bang could not have happened.
Misleading clickbait to begin with.

A somewhat better source:
A better source? You posted clickbait. The guy admits right off the bat that what we are observing with the JWST was neither predicted nor expected then goes on to justify how the big bang model is all fine and dandy. lol. The model completely failed in its prediction. In fact, what we are seeing is truly impossible in the big bang model. Yeah. All the mainstream scientists are shocked and surprised. The thing is I am not surprised at their shock and awe, which is the hallmark of NASA and mainstream science. They are always surprised. The big bang model fails every time new data comes in from deep space.

"Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning and wondering if everything I have done is wrong." -Alison Kirkpatrick, Astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrance

Sorry, Alison Kirkpatrick, you have put your trust in all the wrong places and all your work is for naught. You have been deceived.

The guy in the video actually shows how desperate mainstream science really is right now. And it's bad. They are already changing definitions of so-called long-established facts like redshift which supports the works of the very man they have persecuted for so many years. Halton Arp, one of the greatest space observers of our time and who marshaled unequivocal evidence for a negation of the redshift=recessional velocity as a cornerstone of modern cosmology. Get your popcorn ready for this show.

I think everyone should read Eric Lerner's paper in full for a better perspective.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09428
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-di ... -auid-2215
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 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.09428) 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.”


I'd like to point out that some mainstream scientists are now trying to rationalize away the JWST’s discovery of numerous, hard-to-explain (by Big Bang believers) galaxies that appear to have formed very soon after the supposed Big Bang. For example ….

James Webb Space Telescope catches 'imposter' galaxies red-handed
https://www.space.com/james-webb-space- ... t-galaxies
Dusty, star-forming galaxies that existed a billion years after the Big Bang could be masquerading as the record-breaking galaxies discovered by NASA's new space telescope that have been thought to date to even earlier times.
Ah yes, “could be”, the most popular phrase in modern astrophysics. Continuing ...
However, according to the two teams at least one of these galaxies, CEERS-DSFG-1, is an imposter.

Based on how red the galaxy appears to JWST, astronomers had determined a redshift of 17 to 18 for CEERS-DSFG-1, placing it just 220 million years after the Big Bang. Yet a team led by Jorge Zavala of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan used the NOEMA (Northern Extended Millimeter Array) submillimeter telescope in France to detect this distant galaxy and find that it contains huge amounts of dust.

Dust absorbs shorter, bluer wavelengths of starlight while allowing longer, redder wavelengths to pass, meaning that a dusty galaxy can mimic the redness of a higher redshift galaxy. Once this was taken into account, Zavala's team calculated a redshift of just 5 for CEERS-DSFG-1, placing it some 12.5 billion years ago, 1.3 billion years after the Big Bang. It's still old and far away, but not to any record-breaking length.
There are several BIG problems with this explanation.

First, many a Big Bang proponent has debunked the notion that other things than distance (like dust and tired light) can cause redshift. You can find them all over the internet saying that “dust does not cause redshift” … that it just reddens the light by preferentially absorbing/scattering blue light over red, and does not change the central wavelength of spectral lines. Thus the redshift doesn't change. For example, here ( https://www.quora.com/Is-it-plausible-t ... us?share=1 ) is Silas Laycock, who claims a Ph.D in Astronomy from the University of Southhampton, saying “Dust cannot cause redshift, because while one effect of dust is to “redden” light passing through the dust (shorter wavelengths are scattered in accordance with Rayleigh’s law, leaving the longer wavelengths relatively unmolested), the process has NO effect on the wavelengths of individual spectral lines. Remember “redshift” means the shifting in wavelength of spectral lines.” So if the position of those lines doesn't change due to dust, how has this Zavala study come up with such radical reductions in z? And all of a sudden they’re going to go on record claiming just the opposite of what they previously claimed regarding what dust does? I smell desperation on the part of Zavala and his team.

Second, there's more bad news in the article …
According to astronomers' models, galaxies with so much dust and star formation could have existed 1.3 billion years after the Big Bang, but they are thought to have been relatively rare.

"If we found a large number of these galaxies with JWST, the observations would start to be in tension with the models," Zavala told Space.com.
So, even assuming they’re right about dust altering z, they are still stuck. The images show far more undeformed galaxies at high z than their models predict, but if they claim they are really all just dusty galaxies at much lower Z, then they still violate what the models predict in terms of numbers at different Zs. Either they have too many galaxies at high z or too many at lower z. It's quite a pickle they find themselves in, eh?

But they have an out for that too … a “might be” … “It might just be that such galaxies are more common than previously thought.” And even so, they still have a problem because they have a VERY limited sample size suggesting dust in all the high Z galaxies they are finding. It seems premature to assume all of them can be explained away by the three galaxies they’ve studied so far (and note that the article indicates one of them had no dust and whether the third is dusty is being disputed by other scientists).

Next, the article states that another team of researchers, led by a Dr Rohan Naidu of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, also concluded some of the red galaxies are much closer than their raw redshift would suggests, but for a different reason. Ironically, they use the methodology of Halton Arp, who the mainstream did their utmost to discredit over the years, to justify it. Namely, they use the galaxy's location near other galaxies with known redshifts (just like Halton used the presence of quasars near low redshift galaxies to suggest they were low z objects too). To quote the article, “they found that the redshift 16.7 galaxy's near neighbors in the sky are all galaxies at about redshift 5, and together they form a very young proto-cluster that the redshift 16.7 galaxy is in the middle of. The inference is that the redshift 16.7 galaxy is part of this burgeoning galaxy cluster, rather than a very high redshift galaxy.” So now, I guess, they all want to be Halton Arps. ;)

Finally, at the very end of the article comes a major disclosure that they should have put at the very front of the article. “For the moment, nobody knows for sure the true redshifts of these objects. Everyone is now waiting for spectroscopic measurements of the redshifts — identifying how many individual lines in a galaxy's spectrum have been redshifted, rather than basing the redshift on the galaxy's color — for a conclusive determination one way or the other.” SO ... they didn’t use spectroscopic observations to arrive at their redshifts ... just handwaving.

And I recall article after article recently claiming that scientists “measured” the distance to galaxies in the JWST images and found very high Z red shifts. Specifically, the PHD student Callum Donnan mentioned in the space.com article as disagreeing with Zavala’s team’s claim that a Z = 16.7 galaxy is really just at Z=5, actually used spectrograph data from CEERS and JWST’s Near Infrared Spectrograph to come up with that redshift. Here’s his paper on that: ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.12356.pdf ) So again, it looks like Zavala is so desperate to make these high Z galaxies disappear because they pose such a problem for Big Bang that he's completely jumped the shark. Just saying ...
Last edited by SempiternalHarbinger on October 26th, 2022, 10:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply