Was the Big Bang wrong?

The video is 1 hour 26 minutes was there something in particular you wanted to discuss regarding Webb and the BB?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I posted it for people interested. Its a waste of time for the "gang" that knows everything and understands nothing...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

.....or, indeed, for anyone who does not feel like wasting an hour and half goofily watching a random video, in the hope it might contain useful information.

You might as well have not bothered to post it at all, in fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

WOW, prove my point you goo schlepper...

 

If you cannot be bothered to outline the relevant part of the video, if there is one, why should we spend time watching it?

Name calling another poster just because you are challenged on this is really not clever.

 

I posted a video and the whole video is on topic. Whats the f-ing problem?

Is the presenter and/or guests not credible?

You cant even open the link to see what its about and who the people are?

Getting attacked by a %$#% sucker rocking a mullet, lol

 

PS. And f you too elfie James...

 

PS. And f you too origin, before you post some dumb shit

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The effing problem is nobody will watch a potentially shit video that is over an hour long, without being given a very good reason.

So you need to provide that reason, if you expect anyone to bother, you lazy git.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I don't care if nobody watches it! Just ignore it if you're not interested...

 

Why pollute a SPECIFIC question regarding Webb and the BB with an irrelevant discussion/video?
Do they even mention Webb?

 

There is a series of these science videos. I put a review in and mentioned your site, take a negative and make a positive and all that.

 

I listened to the video, all of it.

The video is about a cyclic model of the universe. (Anna Ijjas)
Main challenge is to inflationary models/very early universe.
Main thrust is computer simulations using GR not any new physics for a bounce model.
A local bounce within the entire universe.
Lambda CDM mentioned very briefly (as best model for the universe today)

Ijjas said the papers are new in the video and they were published 2015 ish. I did not check all on Google scholar, some will be follow ups so more recent.

Anyway it's zero to do with JWST and early galaxies formation.
It is concerned with the work of Guth and claims her model produces the observable universe we live in today but Guth's model produces a different universe.
Not a challenge to the BB per se, just that aspect of it.

 

I should explain that I was for a dozen years a member of UCL's highly respected Psychology Department. This colours the way I look at things. Of course, the job of the detective is quite different from that of participants in a scientific debate. I don't think many detectives think of themselves as formulating hypotheses. They examine possibilities, develop suspicions and decide upon lines of inquiry. In difficult cases the detective minutely examines a potential suspect's changing answers under interrogation. This is a very critical tool which has been extensively explored in its application by psychologists.

The cosmologist who changes his story is probably not a major criminal. He was not lying. He may be on the way to admitting he was wrong first time around. Or second time around. And there is no three strikes and you're out rule in cosmology.

There have been countless reformulations of big bang based cosmologies since Lemaitre's time, but one very fundamental change is at the forefront of my mind, because the echoes of 1994 are so strong. Back then, it had become increasingly clear that measurement of the age of the oldest stars indicated that they were older than the age of the universe. This was a story that even readers of the popular press could grasp and it was briefly front page news. Even the staid Nature used the phrase, "The universe in crisis." Astronomer George Jacoby (Arizona) was chosen to explain the problem without taking sides.

I wrote to him using the Psychology Department letterhead.
"We witness two calculations (one of the Hubble constant, the other the age of stars) which, brought together within the embracing framework of the 'big bang' model, produce an absurdity: a universe less old than some of its parts. Somewhere along the lines of reasoning there must be an incorrect deduction (to express the matter in logical terms); there must be a cognitive error (to express it in psychological terms.)"

Next, I suggested how psychological clues might identify the cognitive area of error, and got things more or less correct. As everyone knows, the Hubble constant proved to be less constant than everyone had thought or been taught for decades.
Needless to say, I was delighted when Jacoby wrote back to me:
"Dear Dr Thomas, I was taken by surprise by the volume of mail sent to me as a consequence of the [my] article. Among the letters, I found yours to be the most sensible and rational and therefore the most pleasurable to read.”

Well, you can see how the current situation brought back memories of thirty years ago. This time it is not stars older than the universe but galaxies older than the universe. So I find my interest in cosmology is re-aroused!

I apologise for the tardiness of my reply due to exceptional pressure of work. I could add so much more, but will stop there for the present.

 

Hmmm… Scientists have come up against something puzzling.
How will this be resolved.
A good old waffle about psychology or by the usual way of scientific method which doesn't depend on what’s going on in any one individual head.
Now waits, for the usual waffel about scientific hive mind thinking.

 

To get back from psychology to cosmology . . .
I have never studied physics academically, but when earning my first degree (in Scotland, in Economics), I had friends in the Physics Department and discovered they were the brightest guys around. So I need to tread carefully.
I am particularly interested in the spiral shapes that have been detected in some of the earliest galaxies. Now as a protogalaxy contracts it will rotate. It takes a little time to get under way, but then goes faster and faster -- but not quite like a top! This will start before star formation, so we must bear that in mind when constructing a timeline. We will likely not find a spiral structure in the absence of rotation. So I pose the question: how many spins does it take to make a spiral? Thing to bear in mind is that it takes about a quarter of a billion years (depends where you take the measurement) for the Milky Way to complete a rotation. May not always have been so fast. When you get back to the early universe, time is short.
So you can see where I am going with this, and I have not seen it discussed elsewhere. I need someone to do the math!

 

Formulating a hypothesis is exactly what a detective does when he or she settles on a prime suspect, though he or she may not call it that. Cosmologists who work on the models are the detectives, and astronomers making measurements are the forensic scientists providing the evidence. Neither of these roles is analogous to that of a suspect in a criminal investigation.

There are various Big Bang cosmologies but, er, they are all Big Bang cosmologies. So the basic concept has remained the dominant idea in cosmology throughout. We still have a Hubble factor, though it is true it has become time-dependent as the model has developed. What you are referring to is the normal evolution of a scientific theory, as more observations are gathered.

 

A significant percentage of early galaxies discovered by Webb are elongated like bread sticks.


https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.15232