A beautiful star cluster that's relatively close to Earth: just 200,000 lightyears away.

[JeffKeryk]

The article Jeffery pointed to said this:

"The author of the article, an independent researcher named Eric Lerner, has been a serial denier of the Big Bang since the late 1980s, preferring his personal pseudoscientific alternative..."

The article does not say he is or was a science denier (so let's correct this now), but a serial denier of the Big Bang and took Kirpatrick's statements out of context, which I believe he did.

Lerner has proposed an alternative Plasma Cosmology (based on Alfven's scientific theories) that has yet to be verified and has had many criticisms of his plasma cosmology. I personally do not agree with the tenets of his plasma cosmology.

Criticisms of the Big Bang do not emanate from rejecters of the scientific method, but from people who believe in the scientific method and who have examined the detailed physics of it and have found it wanting.

Fair enough; "science denier" is an incorrect choice of words. My point in the post was some seem to be using the JWST to disprove the BB theory, which I do not subscribe to. The purpose is better understanding by peering into an early period we have not been able to see before.

Here is a recent NASA article.

 

[MolaKule]

I honestly can't believe some people chime in here to say "This shows BBT is not true".
It's common knowledge that most scientist agree on that theory based on the evidence they've seen. Until most agree on something different, based on new evidence, that is the case where it stands today.

A major part of science is repeatable experimental testing and questioning current theories.

Regarding Evidence: Evidence being consistent with a theory does not equal proof of correctness of the theory; but evidence that is inconsistent with a theory does equal proof of incorrectness—at least to the extent that serious revision to the theory or even rejection of the theory may be necessary.

Dr Michael Turner is a theoretical cosmologist at the University of Chicago and concedes that cosmology is different from experimental science and is instead historical science. “The goal of physics is to understand the basic dynamics of the universe. Cosmology is a little different. The goal is to reconstruct the history of the universe.” (Cho, A., A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe?, Science 317:1848–1850, 28 Sept 2007).

 

[MolaKule]

Fair enough; "science denier" is an incorrect choice of words. My point in the post was some seem to be using the JWST to disprove the BB theory, which I do not subscribe to. The purpose is better understanding by peering into an early period we have not been able to see before.

Here is a recent NASA article.

"Why Do We Want To See The First Stars And Galaxies Forming?​

"...So if we really want to know where our atoms came from, and how the little planet Earth came to be capable of supporting life, we need to measure what happened at the beginning."

How can you measure something, anything that supposedly occurred over a span of 13.8 billion years? How could one possibly see or measure the formation of Stars and Galaxies from 13.6 BYA (Cosmic Dark Ages) to 5 BYA (Modern Cosmic Period after stars and Galaxies formed)?

The estimated radius of the known Universe is 46.5 billion light years. At the average speed of light c in a vacuum, this means light from the far reaches of the universe takes 46.5 billion years to reach us, and longer if you consider that space is not nothing but is composed of gasses and dust and other matter, all which slow down the speed of light.

But: "The best estimate of the age of the universe as of 2013 is 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years.[3] Due to the expansion of the universe humans are observing objects that were originally much closer but are now considerably farther away (as defined in terms of cosmological proper distance, which is equal to the comoving distance at the present time) than a static 13.8 billion light-years distance.[4] The diameter of the observable universe is estimated at about 28 billion parsecs (93 billion light-years),[5] putting the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away.[6][7]" https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Ahaa! So an hypothesized factor, called the comoving distance factor, is supposed to bring in line the hypothesized age of the universe verses its radius and the time light travels from the far reaches of the universe to an observer?

Historical sciences, such as cosmology, see Post #42, is an interesting mental exercise, but as I stated before, it is an exercise in pure conjecture and mounting fudge factors, as at least two authors have stated that cosmology is not even science or astrophysics.

​

 

[Al]

"Why Do We Want To See The First Stars And Galaxies Forming?​

"...So if we really want to know where our atoms came from, and how the little planet Earth came to be capable of supporting life, we need to measure what happened at the beginning."
Historical sciences, such as cosmology, see Post #42, is an interesting mental exercise, but as I stated before, it is an exercise in pure conjecture and mounting fudge factors, as at least two authors have stated that cosmology is not even science.

​

I do mega reading on Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology (even though I am excellent with all levels of Calculus/DiffEQ I have never bothered to do the "Math" with Quantum Theory.

I think it is very likely that man will never be able to solve the puzzles [read mega contradictions] associated with these studies. As amazing as has been the mega discoveries in these areas. (I could write forever here). We are "force fitting"the math to observations (that we are "capable" of observing. We just are not "capable" of observing probably an untold amount. Unfortunately I won't live to see a lot of the future.

I think I MAY be agreeing with Mola

 

[JeffKeryk]

@Al I am not sure we are agreeing or disagreeing. It is a conversation. At least that's how I choose to look at it.
Everyone has a piece of the puzzle. Even me. Ha!

 

[MolaKule]

I just want to point out a discrepancy in the NASA interview.​

"I Heard The James Webb Space Telescope Will See Back Further Than Ever Before. What Will JWST See?​

COBE, WMAP, and Planck [spacecraft probes] all saw further back than JWST, though it's true that JWST will see farther back than Hubble. JWST was designed not to see the beginnings of the universe, but to see a period of the universe's history that we have not seen yet before. Specifically we want to see the first objects that formed as the universe cooled down after the Big Bang. That time period is perhaps hundreds of millions of years later than the one COBE, WMAP, and Planck were built to see. We think that the tiny ripples of temperature they observed were the seeds that eventually grew into galaxies. We don't know exactly when the universe made the first stars and galaxies - or how for that matter. That is what we are building JWST to help answer."

Webb and the Big Bang - Webb/NASA

James Webb Space Telescope

webb.nasa.gov

This is contrary to what he stated earlier in the interview (post #43):

"Why Do We Want To See The First Stars And Galaxies Forming?​

"...So if we really want to know where our atoms came from, and how the little planet Earth came to be capable of supporting life, we need to measure what happened at the beginning."

You can't measure it if you can't see it.

 

[PWMDMD]

It is indeed an exciting time.

However, in a court of law, if one is accused of an offense, and DNA evidence has been left behind which points to the defendant as committing the crime at the alleged time and place of the crime, and a motive has also been established, the defendant will most likely be convicted.

Should we not hold science to the same set of standards?

The scientific method says that in order for a theory to be upheld, laboratory and observational evidence should be present to sustain it.

Science doesn’t “prove” theories. Scientific measurements and observations can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is inconsistent with measurements, observations, or laboratory results could be disproved by a future measurement, observation, or laboratory experiment.

This is all true and I don't see anyone disagreeing with these ideas. No one will ever know 100% that something in science is or isn't true. The best you can hope for is most of the data/observations are consistent with the theory and that the theory allows for predictions that can be measured. The BB doesn't fall down in any way with these ideas and no other theory (yet) fits the data/observations better. That's it...that's all...that's the best we can do...ever.

There are tens of thousands of papers written on the BB from people/groups all over the world using a multitude of methods to measure and assess data. Many of the inconsistencies in theory and data/observation are simply due to technological limitations. Some of these measurements don't fit the theory when measured to three decimal places but do when measured to 6 decimal places. Some of the masses that are measured after smashing protons together only exist for a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a second and measurements taken in 2023 are more accurate than measurements taken in 2013.

There are a million different reasons why observation/data and theory don't fit perfectly and that's ok. Science is a process, not an endpoint, and as time goes by more and more data fitting the theory is the best you can ask for here. For something else to overtake a theory like the BB, you need very compelling and somewhat voluminous data, and that does not exist today. Maybe some day it will...I have no dog in the BB fight other than the professional scientists tell me it's the best theory right now.

 

[PWMDMD]

The article Jeffery pointed to said this:

"The author of the article, an independent researcher named Eric Lerner, has been a serial denier of the Big Bang since the late 1980s, preferring his personal pseudoscientific alternative..."

The article does not say he is or was a science denier (so let's correct this now), but a serial denier of the Big Bang and took Kirpatrick's statements out of context, which I believe he did.

Lerner has proposed an alternative Plasma Cosmology (based on Alfven's scientific theories) that has yet to be verified and has had many criticisms of his plasma cosmology. I personally do not agree with the tenets of his plasma cosmology.

Criticisms of the Big Bang do not emanate from rejecters of the scientific method, but from people who believe in the scientific method and who have examined the detailed physics of it and have found it wanting.

Ok...semantics argument...this has clearly devolved. The person quoted clearly states she was misquoted and that she did not mean what he said she meant...what else do you want?

I'm all for people presenting their counter-argument to the status quo...I just think it's a higher bar to dethrone the BB than what has been presented.

 

[PWMDMD]

I just want to point out a discrepancy in the NASA interview.​

"I Heard The James Webb Space Telescope Will See Back Further Than Ever Before. What Will JWST See?​

COBE, WMAP, and Planck [spacecraft probes] all saw further back than JWST, though it's true that JWST will see farther back than Hubble. JWST was designed not to see the beginnings of the universe, but to see a period of the universe's history that we have not seen yet before. Specifically we want to see the first objects that formed as the universe cooled down after the Big Bang. That time period is perhaps hundreds of millions of years later than the one COBE, WMAP, and Planck were built to see. We think that the tiny ripples of temperature they observed were the seeds that eventually grew into galaxies. We don't know exactly when the universe made the first stars and galaxies - or how for that matter. That is what we are building JWST to help answer."

Webb and the Big Bang - Webb/NASA

James Webb Space Telescope

webb.nasa.gov

This is contrary to what he stated earlier in the interview (post #43):

"Why Do We Want To See The First Stars And Galaxies Forming?​

"...So if we really want to know where our atoms came from, and how the little planet Earth came to be capable of supporting life, we need to measure what happened at the beginning."

You can't measure it if you can't see it.

There are difficulties for sure. How long did it take us to figure out how to measure gravitational waves? Einstein predicted their existence 100 years ago and for 100 years really smart people sat there thinking gee wiz, if we could only measure gravitational waves. Then technological advances made it possible. How do we know black holes exist if we can't see them? We measure things we can see moving around them. There are some really clever people in the world and there will be some really clever people who aren't even born yet. Imagine we wrote off general theory because 100 years ago scientists said well we will probably never be ever to measure them and so this isn't really science? We have no idea what will be capable of measuring in the future.

 

[PWMDMD]

I do mega reading on Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology (even though I am excellent with all levels of Calculus/DiffEQ I have never bothered to do the "Math" with Quantum Theory.

I think it is very likely that man will never be able to solve the puzzles [read mega contradictions] associated with these studies. As amazing as has been the mega discoveries in these areas. (I could write forever here). We are "force fitting"the math to observations (that we are "capable" of observing. We just are not "capable" of observing probably an untold amount. Unfortunately I won't live to see a lot of the future.

I think I MAY be agreeing with Mola

Really? In most cases, the math comes first and it is the basis for the theory AND THEN we go out and try and find the evidence.

Cosmic background radiation
Blackholes
Gravitational waves
Quantum mechanics
Quantum chromodynamics
Gravitational lensing
Vacuum energy and virtual particle production
Most of the fundamental constants of the universe
Basically most of the entire standard model
and this is just off the top of my head...there are many more examples.

Theory was developed first and then it was tested against observation - often in multiple ways by multiple groups. It's important to not get bogged down in theory predicting some constant and it's a tiny bit different when measured to 12 decimal places. These are most of the issues with "data not fitting theory" and it's just a function of measurement error - as technology get's better our measurements get better.

 

[Al]

Really? In most cases, the math comes first and it is the basis for the theory AND THEN we go out and try and find the evidence.

I certainly disagree. Observe-math-look for further evidence-repeat process. I am reasonably certain Molakule will agree with me-more or less.
Like it or not Mola is extremely credible. I certainly have disagreed with him. But that does not imply I was correct.

 

[PWMDMD]

I certainly disagree. Observe-math-look for further evidence-repeat process. I am reasonably certain Molakule will agree with me-more or less.
Like it or not Mola is extremely credible. I certainly have disagreed with him. But that does not imply I was correct.

I don't know how you disagree - that list I gave you are all well-documented situations where math/theory came first and then we went looking for observable evidence.

 

[MolaKule]

Ok...semantics argument...this has clearly devolved. The person quoted clearly states she was misquoted and that she did not mean what he said she meant...what else do you want?

I'm all for people presenting their counter-argument to the status quo...I just think it's a higher bar to dethrone the BB than what has been presented.

I don't see that anything has devolved.

I was simply saying that yes, what Jeff said was true, Kirpartrick was misquoted by Lerner, but words do have meanings.

But to say Lerner is a science denier is totally false.

 

[PWMDMD]

I don't see that anything has devolved.

I was simply saying that yes, what Jeff said was true, Kirpartrick was misquoted by Lerner, but words do have meanings.

But to say Lerner is a science denier is totally false.

Ok...liar...and lied so it would fit his idea...lied so the quote would fit his data...lol. He at least has a credibility problem now in my mind.

 

[MolaKule]

I certainly disagree. Observe-math-look for further evidence-repeat process...

I am not sure but I have a feeling you are discussing the Scientific Method?

The organized pursuit of science and discovery has been advanced mostly through what has been called the “Scientific Method”. This method or process involves the collecting of observations which are then collated into a hypothesis. This information is then applied by induction to form a Theory. The theory is then tested by deduction, a process of experimentation, to predict certain results which may or may not be verified to varying degrees by observations. The theory should then either be supported, modified, or discarded based on the results.

Here is a diagram I use to explain it:

The scientific method can be explained diagrammatically as:

(conjecture or speculation on an observation, claim, or concept)→ hypothesis→ induction→ Theory→ make predictions based on Theory→ deduction/test hypothesis by experiment→ prove/disprove or modify the Theory.

I.e, the method of testing claims by observation and experimentation, or the body of knowledge acquired by such a method. Testability by repeatable observation and experimentation is the key distinguishing characteristic of science.

The mathematics can be introduced at any stage of the process.

In order to build a mathematical model for say, later simulation, the full set of mathematics needed to explain the phenomena usually come after considerable tuning of the model.

 

[MolaKule]

Ok...liar...and lied so it would fit his idea...lied so the quote would fit his data...lol. He at least has a credibility problem now in my mind.

Not only a credibility problem in terms of ethics and publishing, but a problem with his cosmological plasma theory.

I think Lerner has misunderstood the Alfven phenomenon. I don't want this to sound like educational snobbery, but if Lerner had acquired at least an M.S. or a PhD in an area of Physics, he might have correctly understood the phenomenon.

 

[PWMDMD]

Not only a credibility problem in terms of ethics and publishing, but a problem with his cosmological plasma theory.

I think Lerner has misunderstood the Alfven phenomenon. I don't want this to sound like educational snobbery, but if Lerner had acquired at least an M.S. or a PhD in an area of Physics, he might have correctly understood the phenomenon.

Multiple calc classes and calc-level physics and the best I can do is read what other much more highly trained people think about this stuff. As I said, I don't have an original thought in my head on these topics, my understanding of the mathematics is basic at best. My understanding of the arguments for or against are pretty good, or at least consistent, having now heard these arguments from several different authors.

It's not educational snobbery at all...there are a limited number of people who can do this well and it almost always requires a certain educational background. Otherwise, there are people like me, wholly ill-equipped to understand the specifics and nuance but capable of following the big picture once it's presented to me in a digestible form.

 

[buster]

Dr. Becky is pretty good.



So is Sabine

https://www.youtube.com/@SabineHossenfelder

 

[PWMDMD]

Dr. Becky is pretty good.



So is Sabine

https://www.youtube.com/@SabineHossenfelder

Exactly....13:13 is the start of the good stuff.

 

[Al]

(conjecture or speculation on an observation, claim, or concept)→ hypothesis→ induction→ Theory→ make predictions based on Theory→ deduction/test hypothesis by experiment→ prove/disprove or modify the Theory.

I agree with what you are saying.
PWM wrote Really? In most cases, the math comes first and it is the basis for the theory AND THEN we go out and try and find the evidence.
My point is that first is observation...then develop a math model then use that model to prove/disprove different aspects of the observed occurrence.
If what I am saying is incorrect then I will just do what I have been doing incorrectly.