Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are no other mainstream theories in the cosmologist community besides big bang. Like one of the key opinion leaders of the cosmologist community said, "we are back to square one".
I also never said "biblical" creationism, just creationism.
Lol. Creationism is not a theory. I could tell you what it is but you probably are not going to like it.
The James Paul Telescope never intended to prove or disprove the Big Bang Theory. The theory however from an educational and political standpoint was pushed onto young minds that it was "settled science".
Over the past few weeks what is now being seen in from the telescope, completely destroys the theory.
"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 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."
"The Big Bang theory crucially depends on the ‘inflation’ hypothesis that at the outset the universe expanded many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. But experiments have failed to prove evidence of cosmic inflation and since the theory’s inception it has been beset by deep puzzles. Now one of its founders, Paul Steinhardt has denounced the theory as mistaken and ‘scientifically meaningless’."
“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.”
"Do we have to give up the theory of cosmic inflation and seek a radical alternative? Might alternative theories like the Big Bounce, or abandoning the speed of light provide a solution? Or are such alternatives merely sticking plasters to avoid the more radical conclusion that it is time to give up on the Big Bang altogether?"
As academic papers will be written going forward that will confront what we see now, some scientists are saying that basically they are back at square one.
Of course there are propagandic journalists playing defense with articles to protect the outdated science, however they will recoil overtime as papers are written.
Now the question is, do we stop teaching this in school? At least for now I believe schools, should explain the truth, that this theory has been debunked and the scientists dont know, and the other theory of Creationism.
I find it fascinating that the earth and all the other planets circle the sun in this solar system.
If the sun has such an attractive force to hold these bodies in space millions of lightyears away, shouldn't smaller bodies closer to the sun be drawn into it?
They haven't "disproven" anything of the sort, unless the JWST magically made the cosmic microwave background radiation vanish. What they did find are some interesting results that need further investigation.
If they don't actually say how can anything be 'proven'?
I am not a saying one or the other is true, I don't think any rational scientist would.
Yet we have some saying it is a proven Fact that the big bang theory is wrong?
Just doesn't sound right, sounds sensationalist.
Science follows theories. And it just so happened that the cosmic inflation theory was the most accepted until new data can be found. This could be new data.
And to present it like some 'gotcha' is low brow, imho.
Why not be like,..oh,..look, we have new data to play with that could alter what we previously thought was the best explanation. Exciting.
Right. Emerging ideas on the origins of our universe will never make true any explanations that are cultural relics of bygone times.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
