Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?

iai.tv

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 112 posts

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?

#41

Post by medo-bear »

cecilpl2 wrote: post #37
medo-bear wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

im also sceptical but in high school i learned about a bunch of people who were thought to be cranks but turned out to be right. for me personally its not too hard to immagine that big bang turns out to be false but i appreciate that it is the best model we have so far

But you didn't learn about the millions of cranks that turned out to be wrong.

sure i did. but what you say doesnt invalidate what i said. if someone finds this interesting they can pursue answers perhaps. personally i find it entertaining. also apparently this guys work has been published in a reputable journal

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?

#42

Post by starwind »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #20
colechristensen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people do this. Come up with a theory with testable set of predictions that isn’t just a patchwork of models glued together to explain data and then you’ll convince people.

>Come up with a theory with testable set of predictions that isn’t just a patchwork of models glued together to explain data and then you’ll convince people. The dark matter crowd was able to convince quite a few people without hurdling such a high bar, not to mention stuff like string-theory..

Our current understanding of gravitational lensing and the speed of galaxy rotations would both suggest that we're between 80-90% of the mass in the universe. It's important to note the missing mass calculated via lensing and the missing mass calculated via the speed of galatic rotations matches pretty well. Whatever this stuff is, we don't see it directly, and we don't know what it is.

Dark matter is the result of observations...of something

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?

#43

Post by Tao3300 »

VikingCoder wrote: post #33
Tao3300 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how you get that impression from Wikipedia. You're just projecting your own bias and pretending it backs you up.

> Lerner's ideas have been rejected by the professional physicists and cosmologists who have reviewed them. Are you being obtuse?

No. Probably just dumb and ignorant, thanks for asking. I don't equate "rejecting ideas" with "seen as a crank", but I only have a four year degree, so the linguistic nuance of academic backstabbing and gatekeeping is lost on me.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?

#44

Post by kurupt213 »

sdwr wrote: post #23

https://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.

the james webb mirror is soooo much larger than the hubble's (6.5m vs 2.4m diameter). if i recall, the hubble telescope fits in the Orbiter cargo bay

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?

#45

Post by [deleted] »

DiggyJohnson wrote: post #24
xqcgrek2 wrote: post #14

Crackpot 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…

[deleted]

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?

#46

Post by pedalpete »

Though the article is probably incorrect, it lead me to think about how the Big Bang is mostly built upon a paradigm of the understanding of the time.

We understood explosions and how atoms would interact based on that.

It is similar to how in the 1800s we thought of the body as a connection of pipes and fluids because that is how we understood things. Then as we built a greater understanding of electricity, we now see the electrical components of the body. Which doesn't negate the plumbing version, but we now have a greater understanding of how muscles and the brain work.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?

#47

Post by Tao3300 »

awb wrote: post #27
chiefalchemist wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Shouldn’t the burden of proof be placed on the individual rather than the group?

Yes, but don't cover your ears and yell "burden of proooooof" so loudly that you can't hear them out.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?

#48

Post by aeternum »

timmg wrote: post #16

I 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.

Penrose has a crazy theory where he considers what the universe looks like after the heat-death. After all the blackholes evaporate and photons are the only thing left.

Since photons travel at the speed of light, neither distance nor time are measurable. All that remains is the relative angular concentration of photons. If you imagine the universe as a sphere, the relative concentration of photons represents the pattern on the surface of the sphere.

However there's no longer any way to determine that sphere's size nor whether it is expanding, contracting or even the existence of time itself.

The crazy thing is how close this is to the early universe. You start with the cosmic microwave background pattern and that's basically also exactly what you end up with: a pattern/projection of photons where space and time basically become meaningless or cease to exist.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?

#49

Post by kurupt213 »

ramesh31 wrote: post #3
behnamoh wrote: post #2

Summary 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.

why, it won't make it through peer review. high frequency light arrives first because it interacts less with matter. remember, c is only constant in a true vacuum. the speed of light varies as it travels through matter (refraction). there is a lot of "stuff" to interact with between us and a galaxy 14 billion light years away

i wonder if the energy of empty space (yes, empty space has energy) plays a role in slowly dissipating the energy from light.

Re: The Big Bang didn't happen: What do the James Webb images show?

#50

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

medo-bear wrote: post #41
cecilpl2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you didn't learn about the millions of cranks that turned out to be wrong.

sure i did. but what you say doesnt invalidate what i said. if someone finds this interesting they can pursue answers perhaps. personally i find it entertaining. also apparently this guys work has been published in a reputable journal

the point was that "the unpopular, unconvincing hypothesis is right" need be treated as a possibility only if the probability is high enough, and knowing that the vast majority are wrong is an important bayesian input in properly estimating that probability
Post reply on HN