The James Webb Space Telescope never disproved the Big Bang. Here's how that falsehood spread.

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,736
1,112
5,560
The article states, "The irony is that JWST's observations are actually supporting the Big Bang model, showing that the first galaxies were smaller and grew larger over time, just as Big Bang cosmology predicts. The surprising finding that galaxies in the early universe are more plentiful, and a little more massive and structured than expected, doesn't mean that the Big Bang is wrong. It just means that some of the cosmology that follows the Big Bang requires a little bit of tweaking."

How many tweaks are we looking at to keep the BB model alive? Consider 50/51 K background glow originally said by George Gamow and Ralph Alpher. Consider redshifts larger than 1.0 or 1.4 where 4D space must expand faster than light speed to keep the cosmological redshift interpretation *accurate*. Consider the start and end of the cosmic dark ages. Perhaps a complete list going back to the foundation of the BB model will appear in public someday showing all the tweaks that science did to keep the model alive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unclear Engineer
I did find this article doing the very thing that it criticizes, namely misrepresenting the state of knowledge - to state as fact that "the Big Bang did happen."

That is only a theory, with no astronomy observations to support it before the Cosmologic Background Radiation, which is open to a lot of interpretation, itself.

What Webb did, as had Hubble before it, was to show that the galaxies look much more evolved than the theory predicts for the observations of the farthest galaxies that it can see. And, Webb also showed that some of the galaxies that Hubble had found were more evolved than they looked with Hubble data.

What is interesting is that the same arguments used to support the evolution of galaxies with the Hubble data are now being repeated with the Webb data, as if there was no lesson learned about misinterpreting the lack of detailed information in the most distant galaxies as evidence that they were less evolved.

As I see it, the current theory of how stars and galaxies were formed will need to be revised with respect to either speed or process. But, BBT theorists have so many free variables in that theory that it should not be a problem. Here, let me help a bit: If the galaxies had to form even before the release of the cosmological background radiation, why could they not be seeded by either primordial black holes or by black holes that were created after the BB by collapse of dark matter before regular matter could collapse? The theory already has a problem with looking at the physics of dark matter. For one thing, since if is assumed to not absorb or emit radiation, it is hard to explain how it could stay in thermal equilibrium with the regular matter and photon radiation in the universe as it all expanded. And, unless they add some sort of dark-matter-repels-dark-matter element to the theory, dark matter probably should collapse faster. All the theorists need to do is to assume that it didn't stay in equilibrium with regular matter and did collapse earlier, into the early black holes around which regular matter later formed visible galaxies. There may be some push-back from the people who look at variations in the cosmologic background radiation intensity, frequency and polarization to say that it would have to be more variable than observed - but that could be explained away or ignored like other problems with the BB theory.

It will be very hard to ever prove that the BBT is completely incorrect, because it speculates about things that we are not expecting to ever be able to observe. But, it has been rather common to learn things that require the BBT to be revised. Most people tend to learn that the people who make predictions that do not turn out to be true are not good sources for other predictions. And, most model builders have learned that theories that require a lot of free "fitting" parameters with no known physics to support them are highly questionable with respect to their conclusions.

So, honestly, the BBT does "fit" the current observations better than other theories, but at the expense of employing assumptions that comprise 20 times more of the mass and energy that we can observe in order to make it fit. It is basically an obvious and perhaps naïve extrapolation of an observed expanding universe backward in time to a single point, with whatever assumptions are needed to get around the violations of the physical laws as we currently know them. Maybe all of those assumptions are true, but maybe we are misperceiving an important element of the big picture, and some of those assumptions will turn out to be incorrect. Or, perhaps we will never find out, because we are stuck with making all of our observations in a tiny amount of space for a tiny amount of time.

Whatever, it strikes me as just as much of a misrepresentation to say unequivocally that "The Big Bang did happen," as it is to say that the newest observations disprove that it happened.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: rod
Jul 10, 2020
101
28
1,610
Things like this "That is only a theory, with no astronomy observations to support it before the Cosmologic Background Radiation, which is open to a lot of interpretation, itself. " are exactly what the article is referring to.
There is, in fact, astronomical observations supporting this, including the fact that all matter is racing away from itself, and tracing everything back in time compresses everything. We can see the motion of galaxies and clusters that support this.
I am not saying the BB is 100% correct, but it's better than any other model in the wild right now.

Another problem is many science deniers are either trolls, lying on purpose to get the fame and recognition, or they are too unintelligent to understand the science themselves, and so will never believe it. Try looking at Globe Busters on Youtube. I honestly have never seen such a bunch of lying and stupid people in my life. Then look at Professor Dave and his rebuttals. The Globe Buster people either are incapable of understanding or don't want to, and I frankly believe the latter considering the pseudoscience they make up to try and explain seasons and day/night cycles. Even when shown 100% why these cycles exist they still refuse to admit they are wrong. Seems to me they are wrong on purpose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB39401 and rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,736
1,112
5,560
"That is only a theory, with no astronomy observations to support it before the Cosmologic Background Radiation, which is open to a lot of interpretation, itself."

This is from Unclear Engineer post #3 comments. I agree, the hot BB model arrived in the days of George Gamow and Ralph Alpher work in late 1940s but no CMB detected until mid-60s. From George Gamow to mid-60s until present, there are various *tweaks* done to claim the CMBR fits and supports the hot BB model, starting in the early 1980s inflation arrived on the scene. Redshifts alone do not show the starting size of the Universe or higher temperature condition said to exist in the early universe. Both the redshifts of Hubble and later as well as CMBR redshifts used (e.g., today z ~ 1100 for the CMBR) are the results of a number of *tweaks*. Originally the redshifts using H0 = 500 km/s/Mpc provided an age for the Universe about 1 to 2 Gyr. This is why I recommend a full *tweak* review of the BB model :)

Something to keep in mind about the near 3K CMBR temperature used to support the BB model today. The redshift of ~ 1100 is used now for the model to work (along with an immense comoving radial distance from Earth, at least 46 Gly radius expanding faster than c velocity). Unlike JWST redshifts for some galaxies, this redshift is not determined by Lyman break method or direct spectroscopic verification.
 
Last edited:
Mergatroid, I have to say that I resent having my post labeled as "exactly what the article is referring to" and then going on to characterize it as " people either are incapable of understanding or don't want to."

I have raised some issues, as have others, that should be addressed by rational scientific discussion. I even included in my post " Maybe all of those assumptions are true, but maybe we are misperceiving an important element of the big picture, and some of those assumptions will turn out to be incorrect. Or, perhaps we will never find out, because we are stuck with making all of our observations in a tiny amount of space for a tiny amount of time."

You have not addressed any of the issues still outstanding with the BBT, but only tried to dismiss them as the disingenuous rhetoric of a disbeliever. So, I have to say again, that is exactly the type of behavior that you and this article are criticizing in others, but it is not what I am doing, myself.

The observations that the universe seems to be expanding are not what I am questioning, so that part of your post is simply misrepresentation of my points.

What I am saying seems to need repeating, and that is this:

The BBT continues to extrapolate the observed motions of the objects in the universe backward to a time when they are all calculated to be in one tiny spec of space. To get from that tiny spec to what we see today, the theory introduces some forces and processes that we do not understand and which violate the otherwise accepted laws of physics, including General Relativity. And the theorists have given them names, such as "inflation", although they do not understand it at all, beyond what it "must" do to make the BBT work. Claiming it is the "best" theory is somewhat improper, because the other theories that violate known physical laws are not relying on adding forces and masses that we cannot detect, but have named and claimed must exist because the BBT requires them to work. That is a circular argument. If that type of latitude in the addition of parameters and mechanisms is allowed in other theories, it seems likely that oscillating universes could be theorized, too. The BBT already violates the Theory of General Relativity, so tweaking that theory to get past the result that expanding space must always expand and contracting space must always contract seems doable, just like the BBT violates the General Relativity conclusion that nothing can escape from a black hole, by expanding the space inside that black hole to decrease its density.

People who try to avoid rational discussions of the BBT by your method of attacking the intellect or character of all who are not "true believers" is no different from the people who do try to avoid belief by attacking the character and intelligence of the "true believers". None of that is scientific discussion, and it tends to squelch real discussions that might be productive.

So please desist from the name calling and reputation destruction.
 
Sep 9, 2022
4
4
10
That is only a theory, with no astronomy observations to support it before the Cosmologic Background Radiation, which is open to a lot of interpretation, itself.
No, the CMB is not open to interpretation. There are no other 'models' that can explain it. Lerner certainly can't. The article was totally on point. This is a self-publicist, armed with a BSc, who believes in scientific impossibilities, (black holes are plasmoids! AGNs are plasmoids! EM forces can move charge neutral stars around!) being publicised by an organisation who are hosting a forthcoming debate between him and a real physicist. Where he will get torn to pieces, hopefully. He is also always on the lookout for funding for his own company.

None of the stuff he mentions says a single thing about the BBT. It might say something about galaxy evolution theories. I have seen his 'work'. It is sloppy, his analysis is horribly flawed (because he doesn't know how to do it), and he is a believer in tired light! His latest equation for which, BTW, is an absolute joke, and is unphysical, and fails spectacularly. I have interacted with him on physics forums and more recently on youtube comments sections.

So, any other 'model' that attempts to replace the BBT/ LCDM, will have to explain everything it does, and more. Lerner can explain precisely nothing. All the other people who desperately clung on to SS models are mostly dead. They were, however, respected scientists, for the most part - Hoyle, the Burbidges, Narlikar (still alive). Lerner is not even close to that company, and is therefore rightly dismissed in the article as a pseudoscience believer. That is what (his version) of plasma cosmology is - pseudoscience.

He cannot explain the observations that strongly support dark matter, such as colliding cluster lensing observations. He cannot explain the observations that strongly support an accelerated expansion of the universe, or dark energy, if you prefer. Such as the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect on the CMB photons, the baryon acoustic oscillation observations, and the supernova 1a time dilation measurements. There is much else besides, including the observations of the cosmic web which, in simulations, only work with the currently estimated amount of DM. And much else besides.

He is using the typical crackpot tactic of claiming censorship of his 'work'. I saw the 'paper' he submitted to MNRAS. It was a joke. MNRAS have published him before (lord knows how that train-wreck of a paper got past peer-review!), so that doesn't really stack up. The 'paper' was not only flawed, invoking an impossible tired light linear equation, that is trivially shown to be impossible, but also poisoned the well by claiming that evidence for concordance cosmology wasn't all that strong, by referencing a 2000 paper by Mike Disney. Thereby ignoring WMAP and Planck results which spectacularly confirmed the standard model. If I was reviewing it, it would have gone straight back to the editor, with a note saying, "why did you send me this #*&^!"

'Big Bang didn't happen'? Not even close. As for Lerner - as the lead author of the 'Panic' paper, Leonardo Ferreira, said in a comment on Brian Keating's channel - "I think Lerner case is that he is not even wrong. He needs to get more things right to be even wrong." And, "All this controversy to me comes across as Lerner not doing his homework, and ignoring fundamental results."
As per usual with Lerner. Nothing to see here. Move along.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB39401
Sep 9, 2022
4
4
10
space must expand faster than light speed to keep the cosmological redshift interpretation *accurate*.
Supernova 1a time dilation measurements confirm cosmological redshift. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect observations on the CMB photons, by Planck, strongly support an accelerated, expanding universe. As do baryon acoustic oscillation observations.
Can you tell me where steady-state supporters (are there any left?) have addressed those observations?
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB39401
As usual, the people who are attacking my post seem to need to put their own words into their interpretation of my post so that they have something that they can attack.

I stand by my statement that the "Big Bang" itself is a theory, not a proven fact. So, I stand by my criticism of the article's statement that "The Big Bang did happen" as an overstatement of the actual scientific knowledge currently available.

As I said in my post, the theory for the times before the cosmological background radiation age have no supporting astronomical observations.

And, the BB theory needs 4 times more mass and several times more energy than it can explain. Simply adding a fudge factor is not an "explanation".

And, I did not say anything about the universe being "static". What I said was that, if people want to add fudge factors that make a theory "work" to come out with the results they want, I expect that it is possible to come up with equations that will result in an oscillating universe. Just putting a time-dependent sine function in place of the scalar lambda in BBT could do that, and it would have no less support than the "inflation" factor that the BBT uses. Both would simply give the result that the theorists want for their respective cases.

What really matters is what we can find out that helps us actually understand why and how things happened. A theory that begins with a concept that there was some random quantum-level fluctuation in nothing that results in everything in the universe via processes that violate the currently understood laws of physics is not very satisfying.

The hubris of the posters claiming that anybody who does not believe the BBT is actually a problem for engaging in scientific discussions.

So, ianw16, how about actually engaging in a discussion? For instance, I have posted several cosmology questions for discussion, and most have not had much response, and particularly not much response of any scientific depth. The last one I posted has had 102 "views" and nobody has posted a single reply, so far. See https://forums.space.com/threads/does-dark-matter-flow-into-black-holes-and-if-not-why-not.57527/ .

So, how about explaining to us what space does in the way of motion. Does it just "warp" like a flexible solid that is flexibly anchored, or does it "flow" more like a fluid? And, please support your answer.
 
Last edited:

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,736
1,112
5,560
Supernova 1a time dilation measurements confirm cosmological redshift. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect observations on the CMB photons, by Planck, strongly support an accelerated, expanding universe. As do baryon acoustic oscillation observations.
Can you tell me where steady-state supporters (are there any left?) have addressed those observations?
FYI. Any redshift 1.4 or larger must occupy 4D space expanding faster than c velocity as seen from Earth. This is the consequence of the cosmology calculators, e.g., Cosmology calculator | kempner.ne, LAMBDA - Links to Calculators (nasa.gov) Folks can claim all those large redshifts have meaning look back time distances in billions of light years, but none of that means anything without the comoving radial distances being validated and this shows space moving faster than light speed. Even the CMBR redshift of 1100 places expanding space out some 46 billion light years from Earth, 4D space moving faster than light speed. That is my main point about the cosmological redshift interpretation. It works, so long as 4D space is factually expanding faster than c velocity when you reach certain larger values. Showing that 4D space is expanding faster than c velocity in nature is yet to be proven true in science like observations made by Galileo of the moons of Jupiter moving around Jupiter.

What I pointed out about the cosmological redshift explanation when the redshifts reach a certain large value, is a tweak to the BB model, helping keep it together. Cosmology must demonstrate that space is indeed expanding faster than c velocity in the universe and the CMBR does indeed have a redshift 1100 or so. This is not confirmed by the Lyman break method or spectroscopy for such a large redshift in the CMBR. While the BB model does a good job explaining the CMBR, the tweaking needed to keep it together using 4D space expanding faster than c velocity needs to be shown true or validated.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Unclear Engineer
Sep 9, 2022
4
4
10
I stand by my statement that the "Big Bang" itself is a theory, not a proven fact.
Now, where have I heard that argument before? Oh yeah, from creationists, complaining that evolution is 'only a theory'! In scientific parlance, a theory is not the definition used by laymen. It is an hypothesis that has stood the test of time, has plenty of evidence to support it, and has not been shown to be wrong. In science, no theory is ever considered to be 100% proven. Some are so close to 100% proven, however, that we might as well consider them proven. Evolution, the standard solar model. and the Big Bang fall into that category.

As I said in my post, the theory for the times before the cosmological background radiation age have no supporting astrological observations.
Astrology? Seriously? And what would you want us to see before the CMB? Already formed stars and galaxies? Haven't been seen, as predicted.

And, the BB theory needs 4 times more mass and several times more energy than it can explain


And for which there is plenty of evidence. Deal with it.

What I said was that, if people want to add fudge factors that make a theory "work"
What fudge factors? Care to deal with the evidence for DM and DE?

I expect that it is possible to come up with equations that will result in an oscillating universe.
Been tried. It fails.

that violate the currently understood laws of physics is not very satisfying.
What laws of physics are violated?

The hubris of the posters claiming that anybody who does not believe the BBT is actually a problem for engaging in scientific discussions.
As opposed to the hubris of those attacking the theory based on nothing, and failing to deal with the evidence that strongly supports it, as well as the evidence that strongly supports DM and DE? Yeah, right.

So, ianw16, how about actually engaging in a discussion?
I did. How about dealing with the evidence? As for your other posts, I would suggest joining a more active physics forum, such as Cosmoquest, where they have a Q & A section replete with physicists from many disciplines. I merely wanted to comment on Lerner's silly and erroneous claims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB39401
I see that ianw16 has nothing of substance to add to this conversation.

I am not going to continue to respond to attacks that rely on equating me with "creationists" and then try to lecture me on "science".

Ian has failed to address the issues of what is known with some certainty and what is hypothesized without any astronomical observations for support. He seems to be a "believer" who is irate at the idea that someone can even question his beliefs. That is not someone who can rationally discuss theories in a scientific manner.

BTW, I did go back and correct my error in posting "astrological" where I meant "astronomical". Yes, I do know the difference.

And, I will look into "Cosmoquest" and see if Ian can be more scientific, there.
 
Sep 9, 2022
4
4
10
I see that ianw16 has nothing of substance to add to this conversation.
Irony, much? You have provided precisely zero disproofs of BBT. Even when asked to explain the evidence that supports it, as well as DM and DE, you run away from doing so.

Ian has failed to address the issues of what is known with some certainty and what is hypothesized without any astronomical observations for support.
And you have failed to answer the question I asked. How are you dealing with the evidence that shows the BBT to be correct, and also strongly supports DM and DE?

He seems to be a "believer" who is irate at the idea that someone can even question his beliefs. That is not someone who can rationally discuss theories in a scientific manner.
I have dealt with your unsupported, evidence-free claims. Deal with the evidence, instead of running away from it. And I can discuss the science just fine. Being relevantly qualified, and all. I doubt you are. My 'belief' is based on a very well evidenced theory. Your dismissal of that theory is based on nothing at all. Just word salad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB39401

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,736
1,112
5,560
Going back to my post #2 where tweaks in the BB model were discussed, this week I observed another tweak presented to hold the BB model together :)

Physicists invoke the cosmological collider to explain why matter, and not antimatter, dominates the universe, https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/09/220908172401.htm

"Summary: Early in its history, shortly after the Big Bang, the universe was filled with equal amounts of matter and 'antimatter' -- particles that are matter counterparts but with opposite charge. But then, as space expanded, the universe cooled. Today's universe is full of galaxies and stars which are made of matter. Where did the antimatter go, and how did matter come to dominate the universe? This cosmic origin of matter continues to puzzle scientists. Physicists have now opened a new pathway for probing the cosmic origin of matter by invoking the 'cosmological collider.'"

ref paper - https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.129.111301 "ABSTRACT Leptogenesis is generally challenging to directly test due to the very high energy scales involved. In this Letter, we propose a new probe for leptogenesis with cosmological collider physics. With the example of a cosmological Higgs collider, we demonstrate that during inflation leptogenesis models can produce detectable primordial non-Gaussianity with distinctive oscillatory patterns that encode information about the lepton-number violating couplings, the Majorana right-hand neutrino masses, and the CP phases, which are essential to leptogenesis."

Note, matter and anti-matter conflict in the BB is tweaked with exotic physics *that during inflation leptogenesis models* may help here with this problem in BBT. At the present, using my telescopes I am confident I cannot see space expanding > 10^20 c velocity and lepotogenesis taking place in nature today. However, using my telescopes, I am 100% confident that I do observe the 4 Galilean moons moving around Jupiter, more than 400 years after Galileo first documented his observations of them. That is a fact of science just like the round Earth vs. Globe busters or other flat earth groups.

The ScienceDaily report is another example of why a complete disclosure of all the tweaks done since George Gamow to the present, should be disclosed concerning the Big Bang theory. The present BB model does not explain how the universe in the beginning, was not destroyed at the start so today I can read space.com articles and ponder the verities of the cosmos :) Some could get around this problem by invoking the multiverse where some 10^500 other universes may exist. There is plenty tweaking in the BB theory.
 
I am just going to point out that there are many things that do not work out with our current thinking about cosmology. It is useful to sort out what we can verify, and what we are hypothesizing as we try to improve our understanding. My initial post on this subject was just to point out the the BBT is a theory, and that claiming there is proof or other verification that the whole universe originated from a tiny point is an serious overstatement that was being made in the article we are commenting on. It is not up to those of us who see the problems to "solve" them before noting that the BBT is still an unverified theory for times before the cosmological background radiation is though to have been formed. While the BBT is currently accepted by most as the best guess of how things happened, it is constantly being modified as we learn more. And it is constantly being questioned, as it should be, to see if there are additional problems with internal consistency, etc. Trying to cut-off the discussions with absolute statements that something that has not, and cannot be verified at this point in our learning is not helpful, and not scientific. It is not up to the people who raise questions to provide the answers, it is up to the people who are supporting the theory to do that. The rhetoric and name calling are not a substitute for answering the questions. But, admitting that the questions/puzzles/paradoxes exist is a necessary start - and an acceptable position for having a discussion. We don't need to have a "combat of theories" crewed by "believers", but it seems that human egos do tend in that direction. It does not help that achieving publication of papers, acquisition of funding for research, etc. does involve competition. That seems to put many in the mood to exaggerate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: COLGeek and rod
Since the CMBR is a direct prediction from the BBT, it does not require observations prior to its formation to allow its place in BBT. It was the CMBR discovery that put the final coffin nail in the Steady State model, though Hoyle fought this to the end.

The confluence of all the many lines of evidence (see BIG BANG BULLETS) makes the BBT robust and beyond a reasonable doubt. No theory, of course, can ever be “proved”, so it’s silly to require this for the BBT.

Regarding the OP, in the 1930’s, Lemaitre introduced the importance of what is called the “hovering” time. The huge mass density following inflation would have slowed expansion to a point when galaxies could be larger than at a later period. A peak was found ( ~ z = 2) for quasars, supporting this hovering view. This may help explain the larger than expected early galaxies.

For a serious study on BBT, I recommend Peeble’s book, “Cosmology Century”. A great history on all the tugging for and against the theory, including the math.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB39401
Helio, it is before the CMBR where I said there are no astronomical observations. And, I have not said that the universe may be static, just that it might be oscillatory instead of once-and-done.

It seems that people who can't address what I have actually posted, but don't like it, feel a need to put other words in my mouth to have something to argue with.

So, please state your position clearly: do you believe that the BBT is a theory, or a fact?
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,736
1,112
5,560
Interesting what Helio says in #17. "Since the CMBR is a direct prediction from the BBT, it does not require observations prior to its formation to allow its place in BBT."

Who, what, when, where how, and why are good investigative questions.

If there are no observations before the CMBR appears because *it does not require observations prior to its formation*, how did the CMBR form?

What size was the universe when the CMBR formed?

George Gamow and Ralph Alpher universe size is very different than what is used in BB model today as well as the original, *predicted* CMBR temperature from what is observed today. Einstein and de Sitter had a universe size about 2 billion light years in diameter but no CMBR in it. That was based upon redshifts.
 
Nov 16, 2019
36
4
1,535
The laws of physics seem to be a giant middle finger aimed at us. We can’t go FTL in a measly ship—but the bloody universe can. We can’t get over unity engines…but the universe can with “dark energy” which seems anti-gravity. It should be easier to do the Sci-fi things on a small scale…but it’s right the opposite. I call it a manufacturing defect and demand a recall. Who do I write to?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
2,736
1,112
5,560
The laws of physics seem to be a giant middle finger aimed at us. We can’t go FTL in a measly ship—but the bloody universe can. We can’t get over unity engines…but the universe can with “dark energy” which seems anti-gravity. It should be easier to do the Sci-fi things on a small scale…but it’s right the opposite. I call it a manufacturing defect and demand a recall. Who do I write to?
Good humor and question :) I went back in reviewed some papers from 1932-1933 and found some interesting expanding universe models.

On the expanding universe and the time-scale, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1933MNRAS..93..628D/abstract

On the Expanding Universe and the Time-Scale, https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/93/8/628/978803, 09-June-1933.

My observation. de Sitter in the 1933 paper using Einstein GR and modifications discussed the universe size and age. From the PDF copy, "In the actual universe it is probably of the order of 10^27 cm. or 10^9 years." de Sitter speaking about the actual radius size and age of the universe in 1933 paper so the universe size is small, perhaps 10^9 LY radius. de Sitter also mentions stellar evolution models at the time placed the age of the universe 10^12 to 10^13 years old. The paper makes it clear the age of the universe using the expanding universe model conflicted with stellar evolution theory concerning ages and time scales for formation of stars and galaxies during that time period (Einstein spoke of this problem too). From the PDF paper, "2. The short-time scale of these expanding universes has been repeatably commented."

My note. Much revision and change took place from 1932-1933 in the expanding universe models until present day BB model with hot dense initial start, very small universe size at the beginning, and the origin of the CMBR. This includes 4D space expanding faster than c velocity that developed later than Einstein and de Sitter papers, apparently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unclear Engineer
Helio, it is before the CMBR where I said there are no astronomical observations.
Right, and I said, “, it does not require observations prior to its formation…”. “Prior” and “before” are the same thing. IOW, the incredible findings in the CMBR, as predicted , speaks loudly for events that led to Recombination (CMBR). Thus, BBT gains credibility.

And, I have not said that the universe may be static, …
Did I suggest otherwise?

It seems that people who can't address what I have actually posted, but don't like it, feel a need to put other words in my mouth to have something to argue with.
Yeah, I too feel the same way.

So, please state your position clearly: do you believe that the BBT is a theory, or a fact?
Facts comprise the body of objective evidence that support a theory, hypothesis or conjecture. No wall is a house, but an important element of a house.

Facts also don’t make testable predictions; theories are required to make testable predictions.

Those who say BBT, or evolution, is a “fact”, and I’ve seen scientist occasionally do so, are only confusing their listeners. This likely their intent, as a way to use strong hand-waving against weak hand wavers who offer little or no facts that would falsify or weaken a theory.

BBT has a ton of supporting evidence thanks to countless hours of serious efforts. But this huge and omniscient theory is incomplete, and always exposed to more tests and potential falsification.

At this point, a Nobel prize awaits those who can falsify it.
 
Last edited:
Interesting what Helio says in #17. "Since the CMBR is a direct prediction from the BBT, it does not require observations prior to its formation to allow its place in BBT."

Who, what, when, where how, and why are good investigative questions.
Indeed. Those who ask those questions of the CMBR, and seek their answers, will appreciate what I’m saying. Hawking called it the “greatest discovery” of all time, IIRC.

George Gamow and Ralph Alpher universe size is very different than what is used in BB model today as well as the original, *predicted* CMBR temperature from what is observed today.
Yes, but it would be nuts to suggest they would not modify those early, decades-old views, given all the advances in cosmology since then. What’s impressive is how much they were close to getting right, than their inaccuracies with so little evidence.

Einstein and de Sitter had a universe size about 2 billion light years in diameter but no CMBR in it. That was based upon redshifts.
These two were stuck on a static universe , initially. But their view had merit. Newton revealed that an infinite universe was required to avoid collapse.

I will assume their crude size estimate was tied to Hubble’s big , initial Cepheid errors giving an H value of around 600kps/Mpc,IIRC.

I think you would enjoy that Pebble’s book since you have a strong interest in history.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JLB39401
Sooo, did I just read that Helio is agreeing with my initial post, where I simply pointed out that the statement in the article that "The Big Bang did happen," is an overstatement? You seem to be unwilling to simply say that it is a fact that it happened. And, that is my position, too.

As for "falsifying" the BBT, we may need to wait for quite a while, until we can build space telescopes of a scale and sensitivity to observe and resolve objects back to the CMBR. It is too easy to simply revise the BBT model to resolve inaccurate predictions until we can do that.

And, maybe we don't need to "falsify" it. It is far different today than it was back in the 1960s when I took my only college course in cosmology. Give it another 60 years of revisions, and it will probably be quite different than it seems today.
 
Sooo, did I just read that Helio is agreeing with my initial post, where I simply pointed out that the statement in the article that "The Big Bang did happen," is an overstatement? You seem to be unwilling to simply say that it is a fact that it happened. And, that is my position, too.
It’s a fact that the majority of cosmologist greatly support the BBT. “Did it really happen?” gets into metaphysics.

But since these articles are for general readership, then it’s not really an overstatement worth correcting, IMO. It would be better to state that there is great and solid evidence favoring the BBT.

As for "falsifying" the BBT, we may need to wait for quite a while, until we can build space telescopes of a scale and sensitivity to observe and resolve objects back to the CMBR. It is too easy to simply revise the BBT model to resolve inaccurate predictions until we can do that.
The more evidence the better, but the evidence is very favorable at this point. Tweaks are likely, though no theory can do well if too many ad hoc views are required.

And, maybe we don't need to "falsify" it. It is far different today than it was back in the 1960s when I took my only college course in cosmology. Give it another 60 years of revisions, and it will probably be quite different than it seems today.
That’s the hope of most cosmologists today, though some will never give in, in spite of strong contrary evidence.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts