JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE SHOWS BIG BANG DIDN’T HAPPEN? WAIT…

Mind Matters News ^ | 8/13/22 | Rob Webb

[TexasGator]

“True, but doesn’t apply if the light doesn’t get to us.”

The light gets to us.

[OneVike]

Your knowledge of theology is so lacking I won’t even respond to you again.

[TexasGator]

“Your knowledge of theology is so lacking I won’t even respond to you again.”

Whatever rocks your boat.

[minnesota_bound]

If you look up at the night sky away from city lights you can see nebula that spells out: B I G B A N G

[RFEngineer]

“These people have made very grandiose claims about the nature of the universe and how it evolved”

So what? Why engage with someone who refuses to acknowledge what a theory is and is not?

If you have a faith-based point of view then there isn’t much basis for a discussion much less an argument with someone who approaches the universe through the lens of the big bang theory.

It is true that “government scientists” have little credibility these days. I share your dislike of having to fund “govt approved science”

Especially climate change clowns. The do have a sweet gig. They just fake the numbers until they meet the grant funders wishes.

Meanwhile I always wonder why the temperature is nearly never the “average temp” and what conclusions we should draw from that.

[Bullish]

Higgs should probably take them out and wash them I’ll bet.

[BroJoeK]

Reily: "“Anyway, theories are proposed,”

TexasGator: "Hypotheses are proposed and tested."

Strictly speaking, a theory is a confirmed hypothesis, so how was the Big Bang hypothesis confirmed?
Two observations are often listed: 1) the expansion of the Universe implies a moment of singularity and, 2) cosmic background radiation is said to be "left over" from the Big Bang.

But to make the whole idea work, scientists have been forced to invent, concoct, "imagineer", fantasize -- take your pick -- unobserved "dark matter", "dark energy", faster than light-speed "inflation", "multi-verses" and more, suggesting more a house of cards than a solid scientific theory.

Now come some new observations which seem to contradict what Big Bang "Theory" predicted, so are these the needles to burst the Big Bang balloon, the straws that break the camel's back, or are they just minor discrepancies requiring minor adjustments to otherwise valid calculations?

We don't know, but we do know the beauty of Big Bang is its simplicity -- everyone can visualize a "let there be light" moment -- and any replacement theory is likely to be far more complicated and less visualizable.

Theologically, I don't think it really matters, still it would be a shame to lose our "let there be light" moment, but in the meantime, Big Bang should be referred to as unconfirmed hypothesis, not a strongly confirmed theory, imho.

[nagant]

The light gets to us.
~~~~

Which relativity class do they teach that in?

[BereanBrain]

You cannot logically conclude i cannot answer the question - I could choose not to.

The reason I choose not to answer is that when someone is not making a logical argument, there is no need to go any farther.

Neither side learns anything from discussions not based on logic. On the other hand, arguments where both sides use logic can yield results. Like iron sharpening iron Clay won’t sharpen iron, it dulls it.

Here’s a good example - https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/common-logical-fallacies

[Reily]

The Standard Model for Particle Physics can be described as a hodge-podge of ‘patches’ but so far, its predictions - W and Z bosons, gluon, top quark and charm quark, and predicted many of their properties before these particles were observed. The predictions were experimentally confirmed with good precision. So, it continues to have its usefulness. It can’t answer five issues - Gravity, Dark Matter(?), Dark Energy(?), neutrino masses, matter-antimatter asymmetry. Supersymmetry, String Theory, etc. haven’t made in real headway. So, it can continue to be described as a working model\theory in spite of its ugliness. This may be how BBT works out. Gets patched, chugs along until something is found that makes it ludicrous to keep patching. This how science works. The thing with particle physics and cosmology is the math\theory precedes the experiments. Experiments some cases are approaching impossible to do in any practical way. Could that mean the math\theory is wrong? Maybe? Again, that’s science. It doesn’t end, there will be always a better more complete explanation out there. It’s not dogma!

And yes, the Dark twins may or may not exist! Again, that’s what makes it exciting!

[Reily]

Still not answering!

[TexasGator]

“Which relativity class do they teach that in?”

The one you didn’t take!

[Lazamataz]

How fast it is receeding has no impact on the speed of light coming to us.

This is correct. It does, however, alter the wavelength (frequency).

[TexasGator]

“This is correct. It does, however, alter the wavelength (frequency).”

Yes. The amount of redshift provides important information.

[TexasGator]

I just found this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBr4GkRnY04

[BereanBrain]

Your Question was

“Given that you are using a computer and the Internet are they fact or theory or something else?”

Your question is itself a logic fault in the discussion, specifically in the form of Ignoratio elenchi.

Furthermore, you quoted a bunch of impressive book titles, to somehow prop up your side. That’s another logical fallacy, it’s called “appeal to authority”. The fallacy is that you MAY (or may not) be an authority, but that does not prove/disprove any point. That’s an argument NOT based in science.

I predict the response will be either (1) ad nauseam or (2) ad hominem which i predict I will successfully ignore.

You can find what these fallacies are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies if you are so inclined.

[Reily]

Try again!

[nagant]

Thanks.

[TexasGator]

“Thanks.”

You are welcome.