SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Thanks34 minutes and begins at 0.00.It is not religious but shows numerous flaws in the existing BB theory as a result of new data coming from the James Web Telescope.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Big Bang Theory is dead.
- Thread starter SavedByTheLord
- Start date
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the video.
The James Webb Telescope has refuted the Big Bang Theory and refuted that the universe is expanding.
I do not agree with his take on time though.
Since there was no Big Bang then the universe had no beginning which means that is has always been. This is a problem as the 2nd law of thermodynamics would have removed all order an infinite time ago, but that is not the case. So the universe cannot be infinitely old. Note the contradiction.
And since the universe is not expanding then the redshift theory is false.
Thus there is only one explanation for the existence of the universe.
God created it.
What is interesting in his theory on time is that in essence no time has elapsed in the supposed 13.7 billion years.
So the age of the universe went from 13.7 billion year to 0.
He almost got that right.
The age of the universe is not 13.7 billion years but about 6000 years.
Ben Dhyan
Veteran Member
We can agree that the BB theory is shown to be flawed as new data comes to light, but still early days for a more reasonable theory to emerge.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
No, it hasn't. That would be announced in a proper journal and would make the news.
It would not be announced in an YouTube channel with the disclaimer: "Content on The Ultimate Discovery is for entertainment only. While we aim for accuracy, our information may not be correct, up-to-date or complete. Always consult experts and do your own research. Enjoy, but question and explore further."
I really can't be bothered to spend 30 minutes on it because it starts off by saying that Michio Kaku said that time doesn't exist and then shows a clip of him describing the entirely standard general relativity view of time ("time and space are like a fabric, like rubber, like a trampoline net") that science has been using for a century now.
Doesn't exactly bode well.
The things you like are absolutely true but the things you don't like must be wrong....
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
You have no idea who controls the unsaved world.No, it hasn't. That would be announced in a proper journal and would make the news.
It would not be announced in an YouTube channel with the disclaimer: "Content on The Ultimate Discovery is for entertainment only. While we aim for accuracy, our information may not be correct, up-to-date or complete. Always consult experts and do your own research. Enjoy, but question and explore further."
I really can't be bothered to spend 30 minutes on it because it starts off by saying that Michio Kaku said that time doesn't exist and then shows a clip of him describing the entirely standard general relativity view of time ("time and space are like a fabric, like rubber, like a trampoline net") that science has been using for a century now.
Doesn't exactly bode well.
The things you like are absolutely true but the things you don't like must be wrong....
There has been abundant evidence that has refuted the Big Bind, abiogenesis, evolution and billions of years for many decades now.
You are in a religious cult.
Your own guys are abandoning it in droves, but they do not yet have a new theory to replace it.
The Big Bang and the redshift theory came in part from a RCC priest.
The James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.
RIP BB
RIP red shift theory
RIP expansion.
RIP billions of years.
RIP circular reasoning of the rocks dating the fossils and the fossils dating the rocks.
RIP evolution.
Looking back to supposedly about 300 million years after the Big Bang, no only are there not pop 3 stars (refutes the Big Bang) but the starts show a comical signature of being billions of years old (also refutes the Big Bang).
There is also no galaxy collisions nor evidence of damage from galaxy collisions (also refutes the Big Bang).
Not only that, but the galaxies should look enalgered due to an illusion caused by the expansion. They do not. (also refutes the Big Bang)
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
As you're in such a cult, do you think it's a good or a bad thing....?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
You have no idea who controls the unsaved world.
There has been abundant evidence that has refuted the Big Bind, abiogenesis, evolution and billions of years for many decades now.
You are in a religious cult.
Your own guys are abandoning it in droves, but they do not yet have a new theory to replace it.
The Big Bang and the redshift theory came in part from a RCC priest.
The RCC started backing evolution in the 1950s.
The James Webb Telescope has now produces enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.
RIP BB
RIP red shift theory
RIP expansion.
RIP billions of years.
RIP circular reasoning of the rocks dating the fossils and the fossils dating the rocks.
RIP evolution.
RIP uniformitarianism.
RIP supposed old age radioactive decay dating.
Looking back to supposedly about 300 million years after the Big Bang, no only are there not pop 3 stars (refutes the Big Bang) but the starts show a comical signature of being billions of years old (also refutes the Big Bang).
There is also no galaxy collisions nor evidence of damage from galaxy collisions (also refutes the Big Bang).
Not only that, but the galaxies should look enalgered due to an illusion caused by the expansion. They do not. (also refutes the Big Bang)
Nott only that, but the early universe has an abundance of heaven elements, especially nickel (also refutes the Big Bang).
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What do you think the point of just repeating yourself is? Do you think that people will suddenly change their minds because you posted exactly the same thing 35 (or whatever) times...?
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
I am adding more info each time.
What do you think the point of just repeating yourself is? Do you think that people will suddenly change their minds because you posted exactly the same thing 35 (or whatever) times...?
And you have nothing to defend except you are denial.
You have no idea who controls the unsaved world.
There has been abundant evidence that has refuted the Big Bind, abiogenesis, evolution and billions of years for many decades now.
You are in a religious cult.
Your own guys are abandoning it in droves, but they do not yet have a new theory to replace it.
The Big Bang and the redshift theory came in part from a RCC priest.
He is called the Father of the Big Bang. RCC priests are called father.
The RCC started backing evolution in the 1950s.
The James Webb Telescope has now produced enough evidence to refute the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe and the red shift explanation.
RIP BB
RIP red shift theory
RIP expansion.
RIP billions of years.
RIP circular reasoning of the rocks dating the fossils and the fossils dating the rocks.
RIP evolution.
RIP uniformitarianism.
RIP supposed old age radioactive decay dating.
Looking back to supposedly about 300 million years after the Big Bang, no only are there not pop 3 stars (refutes the Big Bang) but the starts show a comical signature of being billions of years old (also refutes the Big Bang).
There is also no galaxy collisions nor evidence of damage from galaxy collisions (also refutes the Big Bang).
Not only that, but the galaxies should look enlarged due to an illusion caused by the expansion. They do not. (also refutes the Big Bang)
Not only that, but the early universe has an abundance of heaven elements, especially nickel (also refutes the Big Bang).
And there is more yet.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Building the case against evolution and billions of years of course,
The James Webb telescope is a scientific instrument run and designed by scientists
If it does reveal anything about the start of the universe whatever it reveals will be scientific, not religious
The Big Bang is a scientific theory
Any theory that replaces it will also be a scientific theory
It won't be "God did it"
But from what others said what you're going on about looks a lot like false news
I'm sure that if the Big Bang theory was ever properly falsified everyone would know, it would make headlines across the world
But oh no, I forgot..... Satan controls the world so he would prevent that from ever happening!
So you don't understand the basis for the second law of thermodynamics. Remember that it is a statistical law and not a fundamental one.n.
In fact, there is the notion of the Poincare recurrence time that *guarantees* that entropy will decrease during certain phases of an infinitely old universe.
So, no contradiction to a *correct* description.
The universe *is* expanding. There is no question about that. The information from JWST concerns details about early galaxy formation, which we *knew* we didn't understand fully. This will help us understand it better and does NOT contradict the BB scenario.
Hardly the only explanation. Also, in this context, the noun 'God' is highly ambiguous.
Completely wrong according to the evidence.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
What case? Seems there's been a lot of disinformation about the JWST and the big bang theory.
JWST Fails to Disprove the Big Bang
The James Webb Space Telescope has allowed astronomers to see deeper into cosmic history than ever before, but it doesn't disprove the big bang.
www.universetoday.com
No, James Webb Space Telescope Images Do Not Debunk the Big Bang
The JWST provides an intriguing look at the early universe, but it's not yet rewriting fundamental theories of the cosmos.
The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.
The Big Bang theory is still on solid ground, despite pseudoscientific attempts to twist JWST's findings
Last edited:
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Hi. I've been reading more about these things in a book written by Stephen Hawking along with another scientist and it's quite interesting although I do not understand in depth many of the terminologies and the way they use them, even though it seems to be written for the layman. I wonder if you feel you have the time and ability to answer some questions I have about what is said in the book.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Hello there. I have been reading a book by Stephen Hawking and L. Mlodinow and, of course there are terms I do not understand. So since some of you that are here on the board responding have very definite opinions and responses to the questions posed, I wonder if you feel you can answer some questions in a way that a person like me can understand. I do have questions as I read his book, so any help you and those that keep presenting opposing opinions might be able to give a person like myself can understand, I would surely appreciate it. Thanks.
Here's a quote from the last one that I really like:What case? Seems there's been a lot of disinformation about the JWST and the big bang theory.
JWST Fails to Disprove the Big Bang
The James Webb Space Telescope has allowed astronomers to see deeper into cosmic history than ever before, but it doesn't disprove the big bang.No, James Webb Space Telescope Images Do Not Debunk the Big Bang
The JWST provides an intriguing look at the early universe, but it's not yet rewriting fundamental theories of the cosmos.www.cnet.com
The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.
The Big Bang theory is still on solid ground, despite pseudoscientific attempts to twist JWST's findingswww.space.com
"The irony is that JWST's observations are actually supporting the Big Bang model, showing that the first galaxies were smaller and grew larger over time, just as Big Bang cosmology predicts. The surprising finding that galaxies in the early universe are more plentiful, and a little more massive and structured than expected, doesn't mean that the Big Bang is wrong. It just means that some of the cosmology that follows the Big Bang requires a little bit of tweaking."
This all shows how a crank spreading ideas on social media can lead to a LOT of misinformation and outright lies. It gets taken up by those with an ideological axe to grind and the real scientists have to waste time and energy setting the record straight.
Hint: there is no panic among cosmologists. We *are* learning a lot about early galaxies. Which is why we sent the JWST up there in the first place. And no, the BB (more specifically, the LCDM model) is not in any danger. It is working quite well, thank you very much.
LOL the creationists have just been making stuff up..... as usual!What case? Seems there's been a lot of disinformation about the JWST and the big bang theory.
JWST Fails to Disprove the Big Bang
The James Webb Space Telescope has allowed astronomers to see deeper into cosmic history than ever before, but it doesn't disprove the big bang.No, James Webb Space Telescope Images Do Not Debunk the Big Bang
The JWST provides an intriguing look at the early universe, but it's not yet rewriting fundamental theories of the cosmos.The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.
The Big Bang theory is still on solid ground, despite pseudoscientific attempts to twist JWST's findings
The leaders clearly make things up a LOT. Some of them probably understand enough to say they are actively lying.
The followers simply take whatever the leaders say as valid. Most of them are simply misinformed and don't understand the science enough to be properly skeptical.
