Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, you did not mention that I was referring to the 99% erroneous cosmological models, and never mentioned BB, you were the first to raise BB. Is the BB a part of cosmology, that is now the question, or are there two cosmologies according to science, BB and Universal?

Erroneous how? All models are going to have some errors. What matters is if it can be corrected or not. Your posting indicates that you have a different agenda.

And I had to go back and check. You brought up the Big Bang. Cosmological models would be the start of the universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Erroneous how? All models are going to have some errors. What matters is if it can be corrected or not. Your posting indicates that you have a different agenda.

And I had to go back and check. You brought up the Big Bang. Cosmological models would be the start of the universe.

No, I just posted an excerpt from the article* on JWST findings that are in conflict with 99% of cosmological models, you then raised the issue of BB not being refuted. If you think otherwise, post a link of where I raised it before you.
* "The Universe Breakers": Six Galaxies That are Too Big, Too Early

So if cosmological models would include the start of the universe, here is what the lead scientists says. "Leja explained that the galaxies the team discovered are so massive that they are in conflict with 99% of models for cosmology. Accounting for such a high amount of mass would require either altering the models for cosmology or revising the scientific understanding of galaxy formation in the early universe. Either scenario requires a fundamental shift in our understanding of how the universe came to be, he added."

Note that Leja says that based on their findings, either the models for cosmology or galaxy formation in the early universe need to be revised.

Leja says "These galaxies should be mere infants, but instead they resemble galaxies of today, containing 100 times more stellar mass than astronomers were expecting to see so soon after the beginning of the Universe."

Note that Leja says "Either scenario requires a fundamental shift in our understanding of how the universe came to be."

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I just posted an excerpt from the article* on JWST findings that are in conflict with 99% of cosmological models, you then raised the issue of BB not being refuted. If you think otherwise, post a link of where I raised it before you.
* "The Universe Breakers": Six Galaxies That are Too Big, Too Early

So if cosmological models would include the start of the universe, here is what the lead scientists says. "Leja explained that the galaxies the team discovered are so massive that they are in conflict with 99% of models for cosmology. Accounting for such a high amount of mass would require either altering the models for cosmology or revising the scientific understanding of galaxy formation in the early universe. Either scenario requires a fundamental shift in our understanding of how the universe came to be, he added."

Note that Leja says that based on their findings, either the models for cosmology or galaxy formation in the early universe need to be revised.

Leja says "These galaxies should be mere infants, but instead they resemble galaxies of today, containing 100 times more stellar mass than astronomers were expecting to see so soon after the beginning of the Universe."

Note that Leja says "Either scenario requires a fundamental shift in our understanding of how the universe came to be."

The words were in your post.

The problem was that you used a popular science source and they often get the details wrong. You are just trying to pass the buck.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, only part is.

Where's your source for that? Have you read all of them?

Because Eve conned Adam.

BTW, imo, the Fall is allegorical.

No Eve did not CON Adam as if he were a stupe. He is the one guilty of sending his progeny to death by means of sin passed on. He wasn't CONNED by Eve. She was conned and did her own thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

The words were in your post.

The problem was that you used a popular science source and they often get the details wrong. You are just trying to pass the buck.

Like you get the details right, is that right?

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh, in what way?

Subductionzone often does not provide backup for any of his statements I notice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Subductionzone often does not provide backup for any of his statements I notice.

I do so when needed. Meanwhile you are merely angry because you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence means that you have lost the right to demand any evidence.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Like you get the details right, is that right?

I try to do so, and if I make an error I admit.

Your posts are full of errors. Why don't you own up to those?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No Eve did not CON Adam as if he were a stupe. He is the one guilty of sending his progeny to death by means of sin passed on. He wasn't CONNED by Eve. She was conned and did her own thing.

No. You do not even understand that myth. God was the one to blame. He set up the pair. The Old Testament God is guilty of evil again, and again, and again.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The words were in your post.

The problem was that you used a popular science source and they often get the details wrong. You are just trying to pass the buck.

Now be honest, if I had mentioned BB before you raised it, surely you would be able to name the post. provide the # number? Failure to do so will be considered proof that you are being dishonest.

Ok, so Universe Today is popular science, lets us try some science outlets that published the same story, same facts.
https://phys.org/news/2023-02-discovery-massive-early-galaxies-defies.html
https://scitechdaily.com/massive-we...y-defies-prior-understanding-of-the-universe/
Discovery of massive early galaxies defies prior understanding of the universe -- ScienceDaily
James Webb telescope detects evidence of ancient ‘universe breaker’ galaxies

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now be honest, if I had mentioned BB before you raised it, surely you would be able to name the post. provide the # number? Failure to do so will be considered proof that you are being dishonest.

Ok, so Universe Today is popular science, lets us try some science outlets that published the same story, same facts.
https://phys.org/news/2023-02-discovery-massive-early-galaxies-defies.html
https://scitechdaily.com/massive-we...y-defies-prior-understanding-of-the-universe/
Discovery of massive early galaxies defies prior understanding of the universe -- ScienceDaily
James Webb telescope detects evidence of ancient ‘universe breaker’ galaxies

You did not listen. The term that you used meant the Big Bang.

And you are only going to find speculation largely by amateurs in any of those articles. At one point you did make a valid claim. It is too early to say exactly how this may change the understanding of the Big Bang, if at all. Just a reminder that star formation, and even galaxy formation is not the Big Bang. This discovery is only about galaxies possibly forming too early. We can't tell yet since it is too early. I was listening to Neil Degrasse Tyson earlier and that was what he said too. This needs to run for a while aimed at those systems so that we can at least get a spectrum from each. That will tell us quite a bit.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You did not listen. The term that you used meant the Big Bang.

And you are only going to find speculation largely by amateurs in any of those articles. At one point you did make a valid claim. It is too early to say exactly how this may change the understanding of the Big Bang, if at all. Just a reminder that star formation, and even galaxy formation is not the Big Bang. This discovery is only about galaxies possibly forming too early. We can't tell yet since it is too early. I was listening to Neil Degrasse Tyson earlier and that was what he said too. This needs to run for a while aimed at those systems so that we can at least get a spectrum from each. That will tell us quite a bit.

I only made the claim that Leja made. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Leja, Physics.org, Science Daily, Scitechdaily, or the Guardian Science correspondent.
As I said to you at the beginning, be patient, let the cards fall as they may as the scientific community delves deeper into what it means wrt present understanding.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I only made the claim that Leja made. If you have a problem with it, take it up with Leja, Physics.org, Science Daily, Scitechdaily, or the Guardian Science correspondent.
As I said to you at the beginning, be patient, let the cards fall as they may as the scientific community delves deeper into what it means wrt present understanding.

No, you were corrected by @Polymath257 who understands far more of this than either of us do and you rejected those corrections. At that point you could no longer blame Leja for your error. You adopted that baby.

 

[Polymath257]

Now be honest, if I had mentioned BB before you raised it, surely you would be able to name the post. provide the # number? Failure to do so will be considered proof that you are being dishonest.

Ok, so Universe Today is popular science, lets us try some science outlets that published the same story, same facts.
https://phys.org/news/2023-02-discovery-massive-early-galaxies-defies.html
https://scitechdaily.com/massive-we...y-defies-prior-understanding-of-the-universe/
Discovery of massive early galaxies defies prior understanding of the universe -- ScienceDaily
James Webb telescope detects evidence of ancient ‘universe breaker’ galaxies

Not just the same facts. The very same words. They all pulled it from a common source.

 

[Polymath257]

Fine, you are explaining to me that when Leja uses the term cosmological models, he means cosmological models that presume the BB model.

No, I am explaining to you that when he mentions cosmological models, he means models *of galaxy formation*, not models of the Big Bang.

 

[Polymath257]

No, I am explaining to you that when he mentions cosmological models, he means models *of galaxy formation*, not models of the Big Bang.

Anyway, I am curious what you think would happen even *if* the standard model of cosmology, the LCDM model was found to have issues because of this observation.

Do you think that the BB model would be entirely dropped? That suddenly, cosmologists would conclude the universe is only 10,000 years old? That it isn't expanding?

NONE of those will be the result. At most, it will be an adjustment to some aspect of the dynamics of dark matter and a rethink about primordial fluctuations and, perhaps, baryon content.

And yes, that would be *incredibly exciting*. It is always exciting to learn how we are wrong with good data and then try to figure out what the correct answer is.

But, any new explanation has to match up with *all* of the data that was previously found. That doesn't just get thrown away. We need to figure out not only what is right, but precisely where we went wrong in our previous analysis. Those red shifts don't go away. The element abundances don't disappear. The changes in galaxies we push red shifts higher don't vanish. ALL of those need to be explained by any new theory.

I'd point out that there have been challenges before to the BB model. At one stage, the estimates for the ages of the oldest stars were calculated to be more than the age of the universe. That caused all of the religious pundits to jump up and down claiming the Big Bang is wrong (which obviously means they are right, right?). Instead it was found that our methods of determining the ages of those stars was wrong. When the right method was found and verified, the ages dropped and all was good again.

So, anyway, I can absolutely guarantee that any new description that comes out of these measurements will still have a universe that is expanding from a much hotter state where nuclear reactions gave rise to the lighter elements and where, later, it became transparent giving rise to the CMBR. So the basic BB model is secure. How it will be tweaked, if at all, is to be determined.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and that's my point too, the more new data we get, the better the models. Whether the new models are accurate will be ultimately determined by even newer data, and so on. I am not challenging the BB theory directly, but imho, the truth of existence is presently beyond apprehension of contemporary science due to lack of sufficient data. I am eternally patient though.

Well, yes, there will *always* be questions concerning those measurements we can't make because our technology doesn't allow.

Nobody claims that science has found the full 'truth of existence'. Even what that means is a philosophical question that science simply doesn't address.

And yes, it is pretty certain that ALL of our current ideas will be wrong in detail. But exactly what that means isn't what you seem to think.

For example, Newton's description of gravity is *wrong*. We know that it is wrong and have measured exactly how it goes wrong. We even have a better explanation in general relativity.

But Newton's description is still good enough to send probes to other planets, to describe all but the most extreme situations for gravity, and to give the basic facts about even things like binary stars. Even those it is *wrong*, it is accurate enough in most situations to be 'good enough'.

Even if the Big Bang model is found to be *wrong*, it will continue to be used for the vast majority of cosmology simply because it is accurate enough for most situations. Finding out when and how it goes wrong is what will lead to any replacement theory. But in the cases where it get it 'right', that new theory will *have* to agree, at least in the end predictions.

 

[YoursTrue]

I do so when needed. Meanwhile you are merely angry because you refuse to learn what is and what is not evidence means that you have lost the right to demand any evidence.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

I already know what you believe is evidence of the theory of evolution. So you can say as much or as little as you want without backup, that's what I learn from you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well, yes, there will *always* be questions concerning those measurements we can't make because our technology doesn't allow.

Nobody claims that science has found the full 'truth of existence'. Even what that means is a philosophical question that science simply doesn't address.

And yes, it is pretty certain that ALL of our current ideas will be wrong in detail. But exactly what that means isn't what you seem to think.

For example, Newton's description of gravity is *wrong*. We know that it is wrong and have measured exactly how it goes wrong. We even have a better explanation in general relativity.

But Newton's description is still good enough to send probes to other planets, to describe all but the most extreme situations for gravity, and to give the basic facts about even things like binary stars. Even those it is *wrong*, it is accurate enough in most situations to be 'good enough'.

Even if the Big Bang model is found to be *wrong*, it will continue to be used for the vast majority of cosmology simply because it is accurate enough for most situations. Finding out when and how it goes wrong is what will lead to any replacement theory. But in the cases where it get it 'right', that new theory will *have* to agree, at least in the end predictions.

From my examination of the theories, nobody can really 'scientifically' say what's alive and what's not alive. "Defining life has proven to be a difficult task, even though many of us can look at most things and tell if they’re alive or not. The most widely accepted scientific definition for life right now is this: “life is a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”. However, there are still problems with this definition." 3.5. How can we tell if something is alive or not? | Astrobiology Learning Progressions | Education | Astrobiology (nasa.gov)
Jesus said if his disciples didn't proclaim the truth about him, the rocks would. And he used rocks as living illustrations.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already know what you believe is evidence of the theory of evolution. So you can say as much or as little as you want without backup, that's what I learn from you.

Oh my, no, quite the contrary. I even tried to help you to learn what is and what is not evidence. You refuse to learn. Probably because you know that if you understood the concept of evidence then you would be lying when you falsely claimed that there was no evidence for evolution. I even posted a quote and a link here. Why did you not take advantage of that?

All you have to do is to understand one simple sentence:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis

Why is that so hard for you to understand? If you understood that you would understand how you are calling God a liar.

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia.