Square Pegs, Round Holes
The James Webb Space Telescope clears up some serious cosmic misinterpretations
In writing this, be warned that you need to have at least a passing knowledge of Big Bang cosmology before going any further. If you do continue with no in-depth knowledge on the subject, feel free to take innocent pleasure in my unabashed rant and severe pummeling of the Big Bang cosmological proponents.
Also here, a less than humble disclaimer and some quick non-credentials:
When it comes to cosmology, I fall into the category of ‘butcher, baker, candlestick maker’; in other words, a mere layman.
To my credit, I have been following this subject neigh on fifty years, so it wouldn’t be fair to say that I’ve not been paying attention.
Over time, I have slowly built up a gradual curmudgeonly contempt for the bulk of cosmologists. To my mind, they range from well-meaning ignorant groupthink pedants; blinkered slaves of academe in continual fear of their colleagues, should they dare to think outside the box.
The low end of contemporary cosmology is the realm of conmen; charlatans, no better than circus tent barkers; a disgrace to their profession. These cosmos bottom feeders snicker with contempt at what they deem an ignorant gullible public that they attempt to dupe, peddling their wares for profit. Nice work if you can get it.
Through the last ten years, stars and galaxies have been found increasingly closer to where the Big Bang was supposed to be, and there was a seminal moment in 2017 when a galaxy was found to be a mere 700 million light years from a purported Big Bang.
In what fantasy land does nature create a galaxy in that short time-span? I know that 700 million sounds like a lot of years, and it surely is, but put it in context; life on Earth is estimated to have begun between 3.5 and 3.5 to 3.9 billion years ago.
Our Milky Way galaxy rotates an estimated once every 220 million years.
Creating an actual galaxy in that short a time is like expecting childbirth a couple of weeks after insemination.
So naturally, I thought this surely must goad at least some of the cosmologists to comment on the astonishingly short amount of time for an entire galaxy to develop.
Nope.
No comments were made. Not in the articles, or thereafter. No cosmologist pondering how such mind-boggling large cosmic structures could come into existence in so short a time. Every single science journalist like good little stenographers stuck rigidly to the Big Bang codex.
I even mentioned this paradox in a post on one of the popular ‘father knows best’ astronomy forums, only to have the admin contemptuously kill my comment.
Well, that was the lock-step cosmologists’ last chance before the James Webb Space Telescope took its first deep space images.
It truly irks me that when it came to Big Bang theory, I was right, they were wrong.
Talk about egg on cosmologist faces
The Big Bang
So you want me to believe that in the beginning there was nothing. Then, for no apparently particular reason something was there.
Well, that’s pretty much how the Belgian Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, put it, the inventor of the Big Bang.
From the outstart, that sounded pretty far-fetched to me, being familiar with the term, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
I also was aware of Terence McKenna’s “Give us one free miracle and we’ll explain the rest.”
From this Big Bang beginning, a continually corrected hodge-podge assembly of Cosmic Redshift/Background radiation was fused together to create a cosmological interpretation, outlining:
A Universe that is expanding
An evolutionary Universe
Universe; expanding or not
(This is where the heading illustration at the top comes in; a hole big enough to pass a square peg through).
The expanding Universe interpretation is based on the idea that the spectrum of radiative objects shifts further towards the red end of the spectrum the further away the object is.
I, and the discoverer, Erwin Hubble, are entirely comfortable with the observation that redshift signifies distance.
The Big Bang interpretation is that this signifies an expanding Universe.
Neither of us believe redshift can be interpreted as an evolutionary measuring stick, nor that it is indicative of an expanding universe.
The difference between Erwin Hubble and myself is that he had an alternative idea about the universe, whereas I have none. For me, it is all about the observational evidence. I have no horse in that race.
Watching a video the other day a cosmologist commented and I paraphrase, “Well, until another theory comes along we need to stick to the Big Bang theory”
No we don’t. Wrong is wrong.
Background Radiation. Does it exist? Yes.
However, linking cosmic background radiation of 2 degrees Kelvin to an expanding universe is completely perplexing to me. That two disciplines, electromagnetism and optical redshift should be a ‘proof’ of expansion by a general (and constantly adjusted) coincidence is just ridiculous.
”How many turtles do you have?”
”Two.”
”Me too!”
It is claimed that “The observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, thought to be an “afterglow” from a time about 400,000 years after the supposed Big Bang.”
Well, thanks to the James Webb Space Telescope we now we know that is not so.
CMB is merely the fog of distance; it is an Event Horizon
The James Webb Space Telescope upturns everything
In the summer of 2022, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) took deep field images.
What the Big Bang proponents expected to see:
Smaller, disturbed assembling galaxies,
The ‘Dark Ages’, an epoch right after a Big Bang consisting of primordial gas and particles.
What the JWSP actually saw:
Garden Variety spiral galaxies with 2nd generation stars that have to be more than a billion years old inhabiting the realm where the ‘Dark Ages’ was supposed to be.
Furthermore, some of them are estimated to be a mere 180 million lightyears from a supposed Big Bang!
What does this tell us?
In layman’s terms, the Big Bang theory is a load of shit.
’Out there’ - it’s just more galaxies, exactly what an observer from that viewpoint would see if they were looking in our direction.
This proves that using cosmic redshift as an evolutionary measuring stick is wrong. I don’t know about Edwin Hubble’s theory of the Universe (well, I do a little but that’s beside the point) what’s important is that redshift only determines distance not evolution or expansion? He got that right!
Aftermath
Of course, all the Big Bang cosmologists said, “Well will you look at that. We were wrong!
I’m joking of course.
You won’t hear them talking about the ‘Dark Ages’ anymore, that was immediately ‘photoshopped’ away. It’s an embarrassment because it was supposed to exist, based on using redshift as an evolutionary tool, which we now know it isn’t.
Old habits die hard. These cosmologists still insist on referring to these distant galaxies as ‘young galaxies’.
Now they are desperately peering into the Event Horizon mist, hoping against hope to find hydrogen-only primordial ‘Population 3, ‘Ultra Massive’ stars.
Even now, half a year later, you can see the stenographer ‘science’ journalists walking in lock-step with these friggin’ losers, none of them daring to put in print the obvious:
“Sooo, where´s the Big Bang?”
Stephen Goodfellow 03/16/23
Okay, so surprisingly I made it through your little blog thing, (hopefully you're not intending for this to be respected as some form of scientific journal).
Given the topic, the immature and underdeveloped verbiage you use (like a pouty highschool kid ranting on social media), all-the-while attempting to divert attention from your arrogant intellectual misgivings behind a phony veil of being a humble "layman" almost immediately voids any hope for someone in the scientific community to listen to your opinion. (and fortunately for the scientific community, you are not a part of) So I have to ask, who exactly is your "audience"? Certainly, as a self-described "layman", your intent is not to display this opinion piece to other laymen as any source of reputable academic viewpoint, as that would be as equally charlatan as the cosmologists (who have more education, experience and knowledge of the topic) that you attempted to character assassinate. This is the type of nonsensical opinion piece I usually see from creationists (who as I'm sure you're aware have zero scientific evidence or observation for anything, yet still try to die on the hill of truth.)
Yeah...I just compared you to a creationist.
All you've done here is expose the fact that you do not understand that science is a learning experience. That we can only extrapolate "what's in the next room" based on the information we have at any given moment, until we find the key that opens that next door. Things like the JWSP are these keys. Another one of those keys was the Hubble Telescope, where before we possessed it, we didn't know about objects like exoplanets, and that on average, every star we can observe has at least one planet orbiting around it. We had no known instances of planets orbiting around stars other than our own Sun. We had no idea about dark matter. We didn't even know if black holes were real or not! And thanks to another key called the Kepler Telescope, that about one out of ever four SOL-like stars have at least one earth-like planet orbiting in that star's habitable zone, increasing the potential for alien life to degrees that no one before the 1950s could even begin to articulate. As for z8-GND-5296 (the galaxy which you are referring to), perhaps something in the deep-field region of the GOODS-South field (which contains over 15 galaxies) that is forming stars so quickly that the number of stars inside will double in about 10 million years (just 0.1% the lifespan of the universe) could help shed light on this? Time will tell.
Just because we've discovered something new that changes our knowledge base, doesn't mean that you've proven that the men and women who discovered it (notice how i didn't include you in this group?) are charlatans. What it (and this "article") proves is that you are the square peg attempting to fit in the round hole. You should probably just "stay in your lane" in the future.
The microwave background likened to '...the fog of distance.' An interesting idea.
Your remark that electromagnetism and optical redshift are two different disciplines escapes me. I see them both as features of the same theory.
Then there's this: '...redshift only determines distance not evolution or expansion...'
If these objects are not moving away from us, then how do you account for the redshift? There is the idea that gravitational forces of these objects - or nearby objects - are responsible for the observed spectral shifts. Perhaps you can account for it.
The fact is that no one knows what happened to set off the Big Bang. More than likely the theory is the swiss cheese of cosmology. It is in fact a reason why JW was deployed in the first place, to test our understanding. I don't understand how some people can get so emotionally wrapped up around a scientific theory. A galaxy 700 million years from the Big Bang, IMHO, represents an opportunity to reevaluate what we think we know, as well as what we think we're actually observing. Is this galaxy really what we think it is? Could JW have a calibration issue? This is the stuff of real scientific investigation, it should be welcomed and eagerly pursued - rip into it and question everything!
'These cosmos bottom feeders snicker with contempt at what they deem an ignorant gullible public that they attempt to dupe, peddling their wares for profit.'
Precisely *who* are these charlatans that engage in duping a gullible public with the Big Bang? I know of a lot of Flat Earth and Electric Universe types who engage in bilking the Great Unwashed, but really - there's $$$ to be made promoting the Big Bang? Where do I sign?