The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
1–10 of 112 posts
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#2Summary by a commenter in the link: Radio astronomy observations of Pulsars indicate that the Hubble Red Shift is caused by “Tired Light” rather than the expansion of the universe.
When Hubble published his observations of red shifted light from distant objects there were two possible explanations that came to the fore. One, originated by Georges Lemaitre, was that the Universe was expanding. The other, from Fritz Zwicky, was that light lost energy as it traveled, termed "tired light". At that time, ca. 1930, interstellar and intergalactic space were assumed to be perfect vacuums and thus there was no mechanism to redden the light. Now, 90 years later, we have actual observational evidence that Zwicky was right.
In the radio astronomy of Pulsars we find that the shorter wavelengths of the leading edge of the pulse arrive before longer wavelengths. The velocity of light, c, is NOT constant but varies by wavelength. This time dispersion is proportional to the distance from us of the pulsar, indicating that the reduction in velocity is cumulative. The observed effect is isotropic. The interstellar medium is not a vacuum but rather affects light waves in a way best described as having an Index of Refraction greater than 1, unity. We find the same phenomenon in the observation of Fast Radio Bursts from other galaxies, thus indicating that the intergalactic media is not an electromagnetic vacuum.
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#3Summary by a commenter in the link: Radio astronomy observations of Pulsars indicate that the Hubble Red Shift is caused by “Tired Light” rather than the expansion of the universe. When Hubble published his observations of red shifted light from distant objects there were two possible explanations that came to the fore. One, originated by Georges Lemaitre, was that the Universe was expanding. The other, from Fritz Zw…
Sounds like this commenter should write a paper.
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#4> One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”
Completely burying the full title "Panic! At the Disks: First Rest-frame Optical Observations of Galaxy Structure at z>3 with JWST in the SMACS 0723 Field" which is the best Panic! at the Disco pun I've seen in a long time.
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#5>“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.”
This is science. It differs from the media's Science™
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#6Summary by a commenter in the link: Radio astronomy observations of Pulsars indicate that the Hubble Red Shift is caused by “Tired Light” rather than the expansion of the universe. When Hubble published his observations of red shifted light from distant objects there were two possible explanations that came to the fore. One, originated by Georges Lemaitre, was that the Universe was expanding. The other, from Fritz Zw…
So no unavailable pitch black sky save for our local group? This is the best freaking cosmological news I've ever heard!
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#7Summary by a commenter in the link: Radio astronomy observations of Pulsars indicate that the Hubble Red Shift is caused by “Tired Light” rather than the expansion of the universe. When Hubble published his observations of red shifted light from distant objects there were two possible explanations that came to the fore. One, originated by Georges Lemaitre, was that the Universe was expanding. The other, from Fritz Zw…
Ok…. So I’m going to try to rephrase what I just learned from this comment. Can someone tell me how far off I am?
The universe is not 100% empty, so the index of refraction is not 1. This could be explained by lots of phenomena like dust particles or stray radiation, etc. Because of this effect, for practical purposes, light that we see as res “travels slower” because it has traveled through more media than blue light.
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#8>“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.” This is science. It differs from the media's Science™
[deleted]
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#9Robert A Wilson's blog, hidden assumptions, has been arguing there are also problems with general relativity and the conservation of mass. His work, consistently rejected despite respect for his mathematical expertise, has recently been published in peer review. He has also questioned whether the Big bang doesn't raise more questions than it answers, alongside dark matter.
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#10Author's Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner
I get the impression he's regarded as something of a crank in astrophysics communities.