Cosmology Still in Crisis 2023: Numerous foundational tenets of Big Bang and Standard Model contradicted by JWT observations. Universe not expanding, not 14B years old. Astrophysics establishment in panic mode as LCDM paradigm crumbles

submitted by MolecCodiciesCOVID-9/11 Vaccines Don’t Work from youtube.com

all 37 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]BlackhaloPurity Pony: Pусский бот 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

"Trust the Science!"

That's not how science works.

[–]InumaGaming Socialist 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Welcome to Science over The Science

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

I've always wondered this:

If they say that the universe is expanding because the light from stuff very far away is red-shifted...

..what if light has just been slowly blue-shifting over time and the red-shift is simply due to the light being from an older less-blue-shifted time?

(Merely assuming that things are constant can get you into trouble)

[–]MolecCodiciesCOVID-9/11 Vaccines Don’t Work[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

You are right on track. The big bang LCDM model depends entirely on a very narrow interpretation of redshift that has actually been rather thoroughly shown to be incorrect, as established by people like Halton Arp decades ago. But precisely because these findings undo so much of the work of establishment academia and represent such a huge paradigm shift, the obvious reality about the much more flexible meaning of redshift continues to be ignored by the people who control the funding, in universities and so on.

Webb Telescope, Maverick Quasars & Redshift Values

Webb Telescope Cosmic Dust Proves Arp Invariably Right

JWST Deep Field Falsifies Big Bang

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

So could the "expanding" universe actually be leading to a Big Crunch?

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The only point of these theories, from a psychological perspective, is to restore the infinitude of the past 😄 A crunch is fundamentally incompatible with that unless you posit cyclicalism of some sort. My favorite in the genre is Penrose's theory, in which sufficient expansion is indistinguishable from a singularity.

Of course this assumes electron decay (not that kind) and, well, let's just say that involves some conceptual problems...

[–]MolecCodiciesCOVID-9/11 Vaccines Don’t Work[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The point of the theories is to provide a model which makes accurate predictions and provides greater clarity in understanding the world and universe we live in. LCDM fails completely on both fronts, unlike plasma cosmology which accurately predicts the motion of galaxies (without resorting to the contrived concept of dark matter), the existence of endless galaxies that are supposedly “older than the universe”, and so on.

In fact I’d even say that the Big Bang model is favored because it is a stand in for the creationist mode of thinking, where the universe has a starting point in which it was “created”. Indeed, the theory was originally proposed by a catholic monk who viewed it as a validation of the biblical genesis. Human beings are uncomfortable with the notion of infinity and eternity because we do not understand it. However, while lacking a clear answer on the origin of the universe may be frustrating, it is the reality of the current scientific evidence that we do not see any evidence indicating any boundary of the universe in the domains of either size or time. Every time technology advances, we find again and again the universe is both much older and larger than our instruments can measure. Not long ago we thought our galaxy was the entire universe, and look where we are now.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In fact I’d even say that the Big Bang model is favored because it is a stand in for the creationist mode of thinking

This view is the reason it's hated, not favored.

[–]MolecCodiciesCOVID-9/11 Vaccines Don’t Work[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

According to the electric universe/plasma cosmology model, the universe is neither expanding nor contracting. It proposes a steady state model, with a universe of unknown age and size, possibly eternal and infinite. The JWST’s observations align completely with this model’s predictions, thus why we keep finding more and more galaxies that are “too old to exist” etc.

The entire notion of the expanding universe is completely based on misinterpretation of redshift, which does not actually measure the distance or velocity of astronomical objects but in reality is caused by the combination of a multitude of different factors. Without the establishment’s incorrect interpretation of redshift, there is no known way to measure the age of the universe nor any indication that it had a beginning or that it will have an end.

[–]hfxB0oyA 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Given cosmology deals with timescales in the billions of years, I highly doubt anybody is in panic mode.

[–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Nobody likes to see their pet theories gored.

[–]MolecCodiciesCOVID-9/11 Vaccines Don’t Work[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

They have spent their entire careers and billions of dollars on studying, promoting, and protecting ideas that are obviously wrong at this point. Their egos are so fragile that they still will continue doing whatever they can to resist the coming paradigm shift by writing hit pieces against anyone who seriously explores the implications of latest JWST findings, and by coming up with ever more far fetched hypotheses to save the LCDM model, like they have done before by making up the concepts of dark matter, dark energy, inflation, and so on.

[–]hfxB0oyA 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, the dark stuff really seems like a kludge.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Pretending that the Big Bang theory is in any way beloved or that every institutional power in existence wouldn't be delighted to throw it in the trash isn't just silly, it's delusional. It demonstrates a complete lack of historical understanding and a very basic unfamiliarity with the field.

I've been listening to physicists argue for decades. None of this is revolutionary or threatening. It's commonplace.

[–]MolecCodiciesCOVID-9/11 Vaccines Don’t Work[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The big bang theory is very clearly touted as an unassailable truth by the academic establishment. To pretend like this is not the case must require an insane level of mental gymnastics.

We have reached the point where we are told by academia that 96% of the universe consists of “dark” stuff that has never been detected (despite billions spent trying) and is impossible to observe or explain. The only “evidence” in favor of these ideas is the fact the fact that if this invisible stuff (the existence of which we have absolute no evidence for) doesn’t exist, then that would mean LCDM is wrong. The sheer level of wildly speculative and blatantly non scientific reasoning that has been employed to prop up the big bang is absolutely staggering, there is no denying it.

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Dude, whatever your objections to the BBT, the parallel you're trying to draw to the medical establishment isn't there. Sir Roger Penrose is one of the most highly-regarded men in this field, and if Sean Carroll and Jennifer Chen lack one thing, it's not publicity. There is no effort to censor any of them, penalize them in any way, drum them out of polite society, or deny them funding, or strip them of their posts. It just doesn't exist.

I've never even seen someone try to claim otherwise.

[–]BlackhaloPurity Pony: Pусский бот 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What if your thesis for your PhD was based on the big bang as a given?

[–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

What if your thesis for your PhD was based on the big bang as a given?

Well, assuming that the PhD was awarded due to hard work and advancement of the science as it was known at the time, that hard work and that advancement was still done, even if the science that was known at the time is later proven to be wrong.

TL;DR: Y'all leave my Master's Degree in Phrenology alone!

[–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why would that matter? It's not like the degree would be revoked. If a fundamental premise of my dissertation were called into question much later, I'd read the new material with great interest.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Couldn't agree more. This is one of the reasons I'm not reflexively hostile to every transhumanist impulse. We have too much data available, and no comprehension of the necessary correlates. At one point in history it was possible for a single human being to understand a significant percentage of the sum of human knowledge. That isn't a remotely realistic goal anymore, not even if we lived as long as Methuselah. Therefore the next era must be ushered in by a revolution in communication or AI. I'd prefer the former, despite my fondness for Asimov.

    [–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

    Dude she's a poet with postnominals who just found out unanswered physics questions still exist, you have to take her seriously. She's like Galileo!*

     

    *the imaginary one, not the real one

    [–]MolecCodiciesCOVID-9/11 Vaccines Don’t Work[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    She’s just doing a presentation on the subject. The people primarily responsible for the alternative science paradigm this channel revolves around include the astronomer Halton Arp, nobel prize winning physicist Hannes Alfvén, Wal Thornhill and numerous other plasma physicists.

    The astrophysics and cosmology establishments are much like the medical establishment. Lots of the people who are challenging it most intelligently come from outside of the establishment, people who have not been indoctrinated by the system, like RFK Jr, who is not a doctor or scientist but a lawyer.

    Here’s a video with a primer on the alternative model of Plasma Cosmology. It’s really interesting and a lot more scientific than LCDM I’d say https://youtu.be/WoNaVb7b-tg

    [–]hfxB0oyA 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    LOL - I stand corrected. Her PhD in poetry obviously trumps my layman's understanding of the stars and planets. I hereby dub her, Gali-lameo!

    [–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    It's funny, but I couldn't figure out what her doctorate is in. I tried to look, but apart from a reference to McGill...

    I can guess what is isn't in, though. (Apart from the obvious, cosmology and astrophysics.) No philosopher would misuse "begs the question" like that.

    [–]MolecCodiciesCOVID-9/11 Vaccines Don’t Work[S] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

    Like so many other areas of science, the gatekeepers of cosmology and astrophysics have been stubbornly propping up a massive tangled web of failed and disproven ideas for decades by weilding institutional power to suppress legitimate science that challenges their dogma. Unfortunately for them, a flimsy house of cards can only stand for so long.

    I find this stuff super fascinating. This channel produces tons of excellent content like this.

    The follow-up video is great too: The Power of Predominant Science

    [–]CaelianPost No Toasties 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    I highly recommend João Magueijo's 2003 book Faster Than the Speed of Light, a fascinating look at cosmology written for a general audience. Along with describing his new theories, it's a revealing look at the challenges of proposing something new in a world that discourages unorthodox thinking.

    [–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    I highly recommend João Magueijo's 2003 book Faster Than the Speed of Light

    Tell us more...

    [–]CaelianPost No Toasties 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    As we all know, the speed of light is a constant. Just like we all used to know that mass was constant and that planetary orbits were circular. In fact, objects get heavier as their velocity approaches the speed of light, and planetary orbits are ellipses with the sun at one focus. Planets pretty much follow classical mechanics, except for Mercury which moves so fast that you have to consider Special Relativity to match Mercury's behavior over hundreds of years.

    So, there are some Cosmological Questions that have yet to be answered and various theories which attempt to do so. Magueijo talks about these Questions. There is something called String Theory which claims to answer the Questions. Since nobody actually understands String Theory, it's easy to wave one's hands around and claim all sorts of things.

    Magueijo has an interesting idea. What if the speed of light isn't a constant? What if the speed of light is different in different parts of the Universe, and changes over billions of years? It looks like a constant in our tiny corner of our galaxy, and over the blink of an eye of human experience measuring the speed of light. But what if a constant speed of light is merely a false conclusion based on grossly insufficient experimentation?

    Well, having a variable speed of light gives some very elegant answers to the Cosmological Questions. For details, read the book because I've told you all I remember.

    The book is well written and a lot of fun. It's written for a general audience and you don't need much physics to enjoy it. IMO the best part is his descriptions of the hell of academia and the horrors of fighting for a new theory in a stodgy world of orthodox thinking.

    There are cheap used copies available.

    [–]NetweaselContinuing the struggle 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    But what if a constant speed of light is merely a false conclusion based on grossly insufficient experimentation?

    There are a lot of alleged constants that could behave like that, changing so slowly that the change is imperceptible over the brief period of time we have been measuring them accurately. You don't even have to have areas of the universe in which they are different, just different times.

    I think there was something about someone discovering that the Gravitic Constant... isn't.

    [–]FThumbStay thirsty, my friends 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    It's written for a general audience and you don't need much physics to enjoy it.

    Sounds like A Brief History of Time. I thoroughly enjoyed that one.

    [–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I would've enjoyed it more if he'd given his Leibnizian musings a fuller treatment.

    What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?

    [–]CaelianPost No Toasties 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I've never read A Brief History of Time but I enjoyed Errol Morris' 1991 documentary.

    [–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Technically, all we know even in our tiny corner of our galaxy is that the round-trip speed of light is a constant 😛

    [–]Promyka5When in the course of human events... 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    An interesting illustration of Kuhn's conclusion that Science operates less as a purely dispassionate, purely empirical pursuit, and more as a socially driven structure that operates to preserve institutional power and individual prestige, was to be seen in the debate between Del Bigtree and Neil De Grasse Tyson. Tyson's constant reference to 'consensus' with regard to the epistemology of Science (capital-S) as an institution is evidence of the kind of whistling-past-the-graveyard technique that scientists and their proponents adopt in the face of clear indications that "settled science" is in fact barking up the wrong tree, and that new approaches likely are necessary to resolve the contradictions beginning to be produced by the relevant accepted model. Of course, Bigtree and Tyson were not arguing about cosmology or any other branch of physics, but they might as well have been, given their respective views on the fundamental operation of science as an empirical pursuit. Tyson labors to defend and rescue the current consensus, while Bigtree sees the writing on the wall that shows that consensus to be wobbling and off-balance, ready for a new paradigm. If science does not operate in this way, receptive to new, dissonant theories, it soon becomes dogma.

    "And yet still it turns." -- Galileo Galilei

    [–]MeganDelacroix🤡🌎 detainee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    "And yet still it turns." -- Galileo Galilei

     

    No.

    [–]CaelianPost No Toasties 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    If science does not operate in this way, receptive to new, dissonant theories, it soon becomes dogma.

    The German physicist Max Planck famously said that "science advances one funeral at a time". Or more precisely: “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

    [–]LeftyBoyo67Tired of Dem Pefidy 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    Which illustrates how human nature trumps even something as supposedly "objective" as the scientific method.