No post body was provided.
The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
21–30 of 112 posts
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#22So, interesting if true, but I have not the expertise to tell if I'm reading an article by a crackpot or not. If there are any H.N. readers who are experts in astronomy, by which I mean a Ph.D. in it or it's your paid profession, who could tell me just how "out there" this article is, I would be grateful.
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#23https://youtu.be/U3Ak-SmyHHQ
Anyone know why this took so long to discover, if true? Is the James Webb that much more powerful than the Hubble?
I'd love if this turned out to be an epicycle moment. It reinforces my belief that being paradigm-flexible is valuable.
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#24Crackpot stuff, unfortunately. The CMB and host of other stuff is evidence for a Big Bang. The merger stuff JWST has falsifed was never really on solid ground anyway but tuned cosmological simulations. The simulations probably got subgrid physics wrong (same issue as climate models face).
You may be right, but I think referring to this perspective as “Crackpot stuff” is entirely too strong a criticism. Wormholes and flying cars are “crackpot stuff.” But regarding this question it feels like you are reaching for the strongest possible language to rebut a position you simply disagree with.
We really are in a moment where serious astronomers and astrophysicists are evaluating validity and correctness of some of our most fundamental assumptions about the universe, to a degree that we simply haven’t seen since at least the mapping of the CMB, and perhaps longer.
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#25I have no idea if this is true or not. But for a moment I was just imagining a world where scientists agreed that the Big Bang never happened. How many physicists' work would be thrown in the trash? How many high school science books would have to be updated? How would the general public's trust in science change? Would be such an interesting thing to observe.
Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened. We used to think mars had civilization and canals until not too long ago (kinda funny that the drawings of those canals ended up looking a lot like the veins in a human eye). Also, the idea of radio waves going through the ether, on which a lot of science was based got disproved at some point.
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#26This guy is a known crackpot. He's not a serious researcher and has no published papers in astrophysics. File under "horseshit".
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#27Author'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.
But that's the problem with groupthink, isn't it? That is, wrong until it's not and then suddenly everyone pretends like they knew it was true all along. Science has ego-issues the same way sports and entertainment do. Scientists aren't any less human than the rest of us (tho' they often seem to pretend otherwise).
The alternative is for the group to exhaustively spend time entertaining every theory so as not to exclude anyone prematurely.
Shouldn’t the burden of proof be placed on the individual rather than the group?
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#28Author'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.
But that's the problem with groupthink, isn't it? That is, wrong until it's not and then suddenly everyone pretends like they knew it was true all along. Science has ego-issues the same way sports and entertainment do. Scientists aren't any less human than the rest of us (tho' they often seem to pretend otherwise).
The earth is round, until it isn't?
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#29Author'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.
But that's the problem with groupthink, isn't it? That is, wrong until it's not and then suddenly everyone pretends like they knew it was true all along. Science has ego-issues the same way sports and entertainment do. Scientists aren't any less human than the rest of us (tho' they often seem to pretend otherwise).
On the other hand, scientific consensus isn't "groupthink", and being a contrarian doesn't automatically entitle you to other people's attention and time.
Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?
#30Author'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.
I don't see how you get that impression from Wikipedia. You're just projecting your own bias and pretending it backs you up.