The Story of Our Universe May Be Starting to Unravel
Not long after the James Webb Space Telescope began beaming back from outer space its stunning images of planets and nebulae last year, astronomers, though dazzled, had to admit that something was amiss. Eight months later, based in part on what the telescope has revealed, it’s beginning to look as if we may need to rethink key features of the origin and development of the universe.
Launched at the end of 2021 as a joint project of NASA, the European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency, the Webb, a tool with unmatched powers of observation, is on an exciting mission to look back in time, in effect, at the first stars and galaxies. But one of the Webb’s first major findings was exciting in an uncomfortable sense: It discovered the existence of fully formed galaxies far earlier than should have been possible according to the so-called standard model of cosmology.
According to the standard model, which is the basis for essentially all research in the field, there is a fixed and precise sequence of events that followed the Big Bang: First, the force of gravity pulled together denser regions in the cooling cosmic gas, which grew to become stars and black holes; then, the force of gravity pulled together the stars into galaxies.
The Webb data, though, revealed that some very large galaxies formed really fast, in too short a time, at least according to the standard model. This was no minor discrepancy. The finding is akin to parents and their children appearing in a story when the grandparents are still children themselves.
also known as Quantum Physics.
Astrophysics is the study of the universe at the largest scale. Quantum physics is the study of the universe at the smallest scale.
I was referencing the time paradox…and past, present, and future existing in dimensions as:
“The finding is akin to parents and their children appearing in a story when the grandparents are still children themselves.”
That quote is is simply the NYT exploiting the scientific illiteracy of its readership.
It really does not matter as it will in no way effect your life.
As William Shakespeare wrote, “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Hamlet.
We are finding out this statement is ringing true more every day.
Smart guy this William is.
Have a great Labour Day out there everyone.
Still, after 300+ years, force is still equal to mass times acceleration.
Reading the comments here, I begin to understand how Galileo must have felt.
If there is ‘lensing’ taking place then is it possible that we are not seeing things as they really are/ were.
Just saying. The Universe may be like a roomful of mirrors . .
Lensing has been used to get some great, albeit distorted images of things that are too far away to see otherwise.
There is zero doubt that lensing is taking place, unless you’re a post-modernist.
What about considering a Biblical creation cosmology ?
How about going back to Greek mythology. How about “turtles all the way down”?
If you think this gets the people worked up, wait till they find out that their favorite theory of ‘Out of Africa’ starts getting destroyed.
There is no Biblical creation cosmology, in fact, that’s an oxymoron.
There is the Biblical creation mythology, and there is the science of cosmology.
You sound too smug. That’s usually a sign of thinking you know more than you do. The science of cosmology has many assumptions about the nature of reality which are untested and untestable. The whole edifice of science rests on unstated assumptions, sort of like religion.
You sit there using the product of quantum mechanics, and accuse me of being smug.
Also, name one untested and untestable assumption upon which the science of cosmology is based.
As I said, you are smug. You are a typical resident of the lower realms of the science hierarchy, just a somewhat informed popularizer or devotee of the self-anointed guardians of truth. In reality, virtually EVERYTHING of modern cosmology is little more than a hunch or intuition. For instance:
“The crux of today’s cosmological paradigm is that in order to maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification.”
The assumption that the axioms of logic are true.
False, being testable is the essence of science.
The Christian Bible is the most scientifically ignorant document mankind has ever created. What exactly in it is testable?
The Bible is not a science book. I can name a bunch of comics and book that are much, much more scientifically ignorant than the Bible.
Funny, the two most consumed books in western history are not scientific:
#1: The Bible.
#2: Alice in Wonderland.
I’m a man of faith myself, and I will categorically say that if empiricle observations and the scientific method threaten someone’s faith, then their faith wasn’t very strong to begin with.
I’m not religious but don’t understand why smug people try to equate the bible and science other than for various ideological gain. There are plenty of Christian scientists have been since the founding of Christianity and through the formulation of modern scientific method.
The Vatican – Mission
“The Vatican Observatory is an institution established by the Holy See for astronomical research and public outreach to advance the scientific understanding of our universe”.
https://www.vaticanobservatory.org/
“False, being testable is the essence of science. ”
Except for climate science, right Allan?
YW, “I’m a man of faith myself, and I will categorically say that if empiricle observations and the scientific method threaten someone’s faith, then their faith wasn’t very strong to begin with.”
Thomas Aquinas would have agreed with you. That was the error of St. Anselm and St. Augustine. They attempted to show the empirical proof of the existence of God and failed.
@Fred from BC – “Except for climate science, right Allan?”
Not only Greta science but Dr. Fauci ouchy science as well.
“The Christian Bible is the most scientifically ignorant document mankind has ever created. ”
Worse than the Koran, then?
The Bible, right more often than wrong.
VOWG – that the stone-aged Israelites got the order of creation correct (the order of the 7 things and when they came to be, not the literal 7 days that many have turned that into) was one of the factors in my becoming a believer. I could not continue to believe that it’s just co-incidence with the many, many times things just worked out to bring us to where we are.
The Christian Bible is not a science book. Neither by the way is Julius Caesar’s “De Bello Gallico”. Neither are “testable” by the scientific method.
Philosophy on the other hand is quite well-served by Christian scholarship. Sadly metaphysics and epistemology are no longer significant portions in any science degree program.
I will defer to the work of Dr. John Lennox, David Erhan, and Jay Dyer, over a low-brow dumbass Reddit atheist like yourself.
Luckily the “science cosmology” is settled.
No-one is saying that it’s settled. I am saying, however, that there is zero evidence that the Big Bang model should be thrown out the window.
Can you show me where/how the scientific method is proven valid?
Predicting eclipses, predicting the phases of the moon, predicting how current will flow in a coil rotated through a magnetic field, predicting the precession of the aphelion of the planets, predicting how current will leak in semi-conductors, building GPS systems, predicting how light will move through a gravitational field, the germ theory of disease, the Shannon-Nyquist theorem, predicting where a missile will land, predicting the location of a satellite you may want to dock with, predicting at what strata to look for what types of fossils, figuring out optimal designs for heat engines from locomotives to jets…
Try again. You just begged the question. You committed the logical fallacy called “proof by example”.
Here is what you did:
All numbers are greater than 5.
10>5, 12>5, 15>5, …. , 25>5.
See? All numbers are greater than 5.
It’s a trick question. The scientific method proves nothing, but it does progress by falsification. You’re showing where math and science give good predictions, but that’s not at the level of a mathematical proof.
Which means nothing. The question, as asked, cannot be answered with certainty for the same reason we cannot predict when flying monkeys will stop flying out of BSDM’s butt and singing show tunes out of tune. And no, I can’t prove that they’re out of tune.
The use of phones or other forms of computers are the results of over 100 years of research and its application in the fields of applied electrical systems and electromagnetic wave communications. Theories were tested and the results lead to further tests. Eventually these long chains of deduction and supposition lead to modern electronics.
Or do you think that that’s all accidental?
Couldn’t help but notice the words “unfortunate” and “uncomfortable” – Why? If you’re having a hard time coming to grips with the fact that you don’t know as much as you think you do leave the damn telescope at home.
Launched at the end of 2021 as a joint project of NASA, the European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency…
Well knock me down with a feather! I thought they were around to help facilitate ground breaking scientific experiments on the ISS like whether or not Chris Hadfield can play a guitar in low earth orbit.
New York Times has a large back-catalog of science articles that are getting blown out of the water right now. They’re nervous.
Finding galaxies that are a great deal older than they are supposed to be means the current model is wildly wrong. Plenty of guys have made their whole career out of the current model. Two generations worth. Those guys are panicking.
Turns out, most “scientists” are merely over-educated technicians. You get them outside their envelope, they can’t manage.
We don’t even know if what JWST observed were galaxies at all.
Also, their assumed size, based on luminosity, is based on the size and luminosity of much younger galaxies in a much older universe. Tweak the luminosity vs size thing a bit, say for a bunch of population 3 stars, and everything falls into place within the existing model.
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed, if you do, you are misinformed.”
-Sam Clemens.
The moral is, if you get your science news from the MSM, then you are woefully misinformed.
If you don’t know the math, then you are utterly unable to even think critically about the current state-of-the-art of physics, cosmology, computing, AI, etc, and can just opine based on whatever you like.
Agree strongly with both of you. The truth in all this is that the consensus is always either wrong or incomplete. Insistence upon the truth of the consensus is why global warming is just another religious cult.
cgh:
yup.
Still, the fact is, these new observations don’t even come close to ruling out the Big Bang model, they don’t even come close to a suggestion of ruling it out, except in the minds of people who, for whatever reason, don’t believe the Big Bang model in the first place.
If I see an orange on a table, I assume that “There is an orange on the table” to be an objective fact, despite the fact that even 1930s visual trickery, and definitely modern holography, could fool me into thinking that there is an orange on the table, when in fact there is not.
Abandoning the assumption of objective reality is called “post-modernism”, and I think that its a mental illness to be exploited by those who would replace your “reality” with theirs.
I agree with you entirely here. The Big Bang theory is far from ruled out. There will be years of work just verifying the observations let alone intelligent analysis as to what it means.
Post-modernism is indeed a dreadful delusion of our time. I think you will agree with me that the world would have been far better off if some French philosophers in the 20th century, and most of the German philosophers of the 19th century, had been strangled at birth. We both know who we mean, don’t we?
Neitzche, Kant and Focault? Descartes was OK in my books, if a little misguided.
I admit, I’m more of a math/physics man than a philosophy man.
Add Marx and Hegels to the list. Also Jacques Derrida and all of his post modernist brethren. I also have little use for Sartre and existentialism. As to math/physics, I agree with you. If all of the so-called social sciences had never been invented, the world would mostly be a better place. The most ridiculous of the bunch was “political science”. There’s no science in Poli-Sci.
cgh. So nothing exploded and became the universe. So stupid it makes me shake my head and wonder how stupid people really are.
“Agree strongly with both of you. The truth in all this is that the consensus is always either wrong or incomplete. Insistence upon the truth of the consensus is why global warming is just another religious cult.”
So true. Like the ‘climate crisis’, vaccine mandates or ‘transsexualism’, if your go-to argument whenever someone asks an innocuous question about your beliefs is to scream “Shut up DENIER!!”, your position is clearly indefensible (and you know it).
Bingo. When they stick their noses into epistemology and metaphysics against serious opposition, they get their smug faces torn off.
The farther back in time we see, the older the universe gets.
Even with JWST observations, all the evidence to date suggests that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.
That’s just as far back as we can see. The universe could be so old — and so large — that light from distant points will never reach us.
I sometimes wonder if what we’re seeing — and all we can see — is actually relatively local.
The evidence to date suggests that all the matter and energy we can currently see (and much that lies beyond our horizon) was concentrated in a very small volume at a very hight temperature around 13.8 billion years ago.
“The evidence to date suggests that all the matter and energy we can currently see… was concentrated in a very small volume at a very high temperature around 13.8 billion years ago…” …except for the new evidence that shows complete, mature galaxies older than 13.8 billion years, suggesting the number might be very extremely wrong.
There. That wasn’t so hard, was it?
Just wait until they start putting telescopes out around the orbit of Jupiter, get a really -wide- baseline. That ought to be good for a giggle.
The new evidence can be (probably wrongly) as mature galaxies that formed after the 13.8 billion year mark by many millions of years, much earlier than we thought they could, but not before 13.8 billion years ago.
This is what they’re whistling when they walk past the graveyard.
Tell me, Steve, on what do you base that opinion?
A poorly-written NYT article?
This is interesting.
https://phys.org/news/2023-07-age-universe-billion-years-previously.html
Sorry it’s not the NYT.
Steve, that paper is based on a cherry-picked version of both MOND and tired light, and it fails to explain observed gravitational lensing.
Its got a long, long way to go before it can be accepted.
Yeahwell, I agree with every physics argument you’ve made in this thread. I’m not going to bother responding to all your critics, as you have this well in hand. “Tired Light” – Lord help me. “Steady State Universe” – even Fred Hoyle admitted about 40 years ago that it was likely wrong, that there was no continuous production of new matter and that the universe was indeed expanding.
It must come to some with dismay that Einstein’s theory of relativity was confirmed with the observation of gravitational waves by the LIGO observations.
cgh, ever since I was a little boy, I’ve Been asking “What is this made of, and where did it come from?” never getting a straight answer. Thus my foray into physics. Got myself up to date with the best mankind can come up with, with all the math that goes with it…
Then I asked “Why is everything so effin screrwd up?” Thus my foray into politics.
Physics is easier.
How do we know that? Smells of circular reasoning.
The Big Bang didn’t happen … published Aug 2022
What do the James Webb images really show?
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215
…
Roy Lofquist 12 August 2022
Summary: 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 Zwicky, was that light lost energy as it traveled, termed “tired light”. At that time, ca. 1930, interstellar and intergalactic space were assumed to be perfect vacuums and thus there was no mechanism to redden the light. Now, 90 years later, we have actual observational evidence that Zwicky was right.
Tired light has been debunks many times.
Roy Lofquist is one of those “electric universe” crackpots.
It was never assumed that space was a perfect vacuum, in fact, steady-state models assumed the continuous creation of matter.
Brian, I believe you refer to Father Georges Lemaitre …. a Catholic priest and father of the Big Bang theory.
It’s the New York Times so now I’m not sure the universe even exists. But if they’ve discovered some sort of anomaly in cosmological theory, I’m sure it’s Trump’s fault.
Yup.
If the CBC promised that the sun would rise tomorrow, I’d be very worried.
So far, the Standard Model/QFT + General Relativity can accurately describe all observed phenomena from a scale of 10^-21 meters to 10^19 meters. 40 orders of magnitude.
Be very, very carefull if you think you can throw that out the window.
Oh, and BTW, no-one has thrown Newtonian dynamics out the window like many here want to throw the Big Bang, and therefore the Standard Model/QFT + General Relativity out the window.
Crackpots, and the people that listen to them, no different than flat-earthers.
The one conceptual stumbling block to a new understanding of cosmology is the assumption that red shift is due to doppler effect.
No, its the OBSERVATION , tested in labs, with the moon and the sun, literally thousands of times, that red-shift is due to the Doppler effect.
Wrong. Red shift is ASSOCIATED with the Doppler effect.
No.
We have equations that connect red shift to velocity. The equations work in the lab, with the sun, with the rotation of the Andromeda galaxy, etc.
That’s how science works.
Of course, I do look forward to your explanation, but if its tired light, then why is the light from Andromeda blue-shifted on average, more so on the side that is rotating towards us? Is it steroidal light?
I eagerly await your mathematically consistent model that also fits with all other observations.
The only time the science is settled is when the commies say it is.
Expanding space?
Dark matter?
Dark energy?
Dark time?
Dark matter: numerous repeatable observations have confirmed that there is something that interacts through gravity that we cannot see with light or neutrinos.
Dark energy: numerous repeatable observations have confirmed that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating.
Space expanding: See dark energy.
Dark Time: Never heard of it.
Dark Time. I made it up poking fun.
Dark matter and Dark time are supposedly confirmed but cosmologists admit they know little about it, so wrapper it.
They are explanations of the incongruity between quantum and stellar mechanics, the very large and the very small.
But giving them confirmation status is akin to believing in systemic racism and government creates jobs; not much removed from Einstein’s cosmological constant constant when he couldn’t make his math work.
The math doesn’t work on the dark stuff either.
Just saying.
All these terms are simply modern epicycles; bandaids upon failed theories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
Epicycles were sort of fine until Newton.
I guess you’re the next Newton, to finally disprove the modern epicycles?
Allow me to genuflect before your massive intellect, and I look forward to your proof of your assertion, or even some compelling evidence.
Of course, gravitational lensing, anomalous galactic rotation, accelerated expansion inferred from red-shifts of type IA supernova standard candles, those aren’t things, so tell me, Oh mighty intellect, what is your explanation of these observations?
No mathematically consistent explanation better than what already exists?
I thought as much.
Of, and if you don’t like mathematical consistency, then you’re one of the 2+2=5 crowd, worse than the flat-earthers.
I do not know. . .
Where the buffalo go.
Rome??
Gee, I guess we’ll just have to accept that God and Allah in consort created the entire universe.
You forgot Quetzalcoatl, you racist!
OK I’ll bite. Who created God, Allah or all the other charlatans? May I suggestr MAN?
You asking who created what is by definition uncreated? Dude, dafuq?
The crackpots have melded post-modernism’s “There is no objective reality” with pre-modernism’s “God (or some agency) did it” into a true obscenity, and the sad fact is that it appeals to both the post- and pre- modernists, building a consensus of the foolish, stupid and brainwashed, just like climate science.
They actually think that God or nature or whatever wouldn’t or couldn’t contrive a Rube Goldberg machine to fire our minds and our imaginations.
Roll on Armageddon.
Before we start pontificating upon the evolution of the universe, we have to determine terms. Is the Universe constant throught time and space, or simply throughout time, or space. In otherwords, what are we talking about when we say “universe”?
Back in the day, it used to be called “The World.”
It is that which we are capable of observing and measuring.
So far, that covers from about 10^-21 meters to 10^25 meters.
Our models work perfectly from around 10^-21 meters to around 10^19 meters, or from observing quarks to around 10 000 light years.
Above 10 000 light-years, dark energy and dark matter come into play, and those are far from fully understood, but we’re making advances, maybe not fast enough for some, though.
What about things that we are NOT capable of measuring? Like the axioms of predicate logic?
We can measure those things, using such simple things as beans, and counting them.
First order set theory is a thing.
2+2=5 is false.
2+2=4 is true.
I don’t think you know what logic is.
What is “2”? Does it exist outside the concept of “two apples”? If so, where? If not, then how to do we know, exactly, that the mathematical operation ‘+’, causes “2+2=4” to be true and not “2+2=5”?
But even deeper, how do we know that modus ponens exists outside the human mind? Does it even? Where do the laws of physics reside? Where does language itself reside?
Look, as the Universe is, by definition, everything, then it must be constant, otherwise something could be added or subtracted by something outside of the universe, which by definition does not exist,
So, and this is what I do not uderstand, is the universe constant in mass/energy over space or time; there are three variables here mass/energy, space and time. Is ME * S * T constant, or simply ME * S constant, or ME * T, or maybe S * T and M/E is independently constant? So many issues. No one is considering them because it is assumed red shift is due to doppler.
On a conceptual level, what does “increase” mean. We can udnerstand if M/E is increasing or decreasing, also, with a little more difficyulty, that S is inreasing or decreasing, but is T increasing or decreasing?
You just made up a definition of the universe (an incorrect one, to boot), and used your made up definition to make an argument. That’s called a straw-man argument, and it may fly here, but it won’t fly where real observations and the scientific method are brought to bear.
Yeahwell, what is your definition of the universe if it is not everything?
Back in the day, it used to be called “The World.”
It is that which we are capable of observing and measuring.
So far, that covers from about 10^-21 meters to 10^25 meters.
We can infer a wee bit more with our current models, say up to 10^28 meters.
That’s it. That’s all she wrote, for now.
What is “the scientific method” and where did it come from?
You can’t be that dumb.
The scientific method is a methodology used to build models of the physical world, by asking questions, doing experiments, modifying models, etc.
As I see it, you and your ilk have done no experiments, made no mathematically consistent models, so you are just as unscientific as Greta.
Oh, and math is discovered, not invented, unless you think that 2+2=5.
So I’ll bite You say we “discover” mathematics? And we can observe and measure it? In which galaxy do we find the number ‘2’? I’d like to know it’s mass and velocity.
Red shift has been observed to be caused by Doppler effect, confirmed thousands of times, in labs, with the sun, etc.
I figure you are or were a Scientologist, what with your MEST stuff, totally ignorant of dimensional analysis, etc.
Oh, and what with your concentrating on MEST, you forgot about electric charge, relativity, strong and weak nuclear forces, and more.
You flat-earthers and your made up stuff really bug me, mostly because you’re all full of it. You add nothing to science, instead devote your time to confusing others with logical fallacies.
“confirmed” … lol.
Yes, confirmed, as much as you can confirm anything.
I guess that in your books, I can’t confirm that you replied ““confirmed” … lol.”
You are evidently yet another post-modernist.
No, I am a foundational presuppositionalist. TAG is my worldview.
Its the song that never ends.. It goes on and on my friends.. They are not going to build a fancy new scope and not find a reason to build another.. They do mark their own papers, right?..
New scopes are in the works.
Too bad new particle accelerators are not.
The Universe didn’t start with the Big Bang. Maybe some portion of it started expanding out with one, but I am convinced that the Universe is much, much bigger, possibly infinite, and that there was already quite a bit going on when the Big Bang occurred. It is quite possible that Big Bangs are are quite common cosmological events.
now you’re getting into multiverses.
Multiverse are for greeting cards. I myself propose that the universe was created by an American pop singer. I call it the “Big Bing theory”.
Get yer facts trait before beakin, off.
The OLD Testament explained the Creation.
The NEW Testament copied it.
Believe what you will.
For all intent and purpose our world is flat.. Then they let the boffins in the room to tell us tall tales from far away lands.. Sea monsters and giants, mountains of gold.. How much of that was true?..
We calculate the spin and curve of the earth to shoot artillery shells but we don’t use these calculations to fly air plains?.. Interesting stuff..
Einsteins everywhere. Who knew?
…at least people who have taken the time to read his works and understand the math.
Biden’s climate flunky, John Kerry, has lately been shamelessly regurgitating the “98% of scientists agree” crap.
Just watching a science doc with Prof. Brian Cox, talking with a NASA scientist about the latest Mars exploration venture. Cox asked him what it would take to convince a room full of scientists that they had found biological proof of life. The NASA scientist laughed and said you couldn’t get a roomful of scientists to agree on what they had for lunch.
EXACTLY!!!
Everybody agrees that force equals mass times acceleration, for 300+ years.
Not that long ago everyone (who mattered back then) agreed the earth was the center of the universe…and they tossed Galileo in the slammer for his contrarian ideas on the matter.
And you might say, “Well, that was 400 years ago. We’ve progressed a long way since then.” And you would be right.
However, 400 years from now, a great deal of what we think is scientific gospel in 2023 might be considered silly nonsense. Indeed, I’d bet on it…not that I’ll be around to collect.
I would proffer that the only thing that is eternal is wisdom.
300+ years ago, F=ma.
2023 F still = ma, tested probably millions of times by now in every high school.
So, you can bet that that’s all gonna go by the wayside, myself, I’ll bet that in the year 2525, F will still = ma.
You’re hanging your hat on one theorem as a proof of argument.
Neither you nor I have any idea of what will be discovered over the next 400 years…assuming the human race is still around by then. Even as we debate this, quantum physics is playing havoc with long established “facts”, things I won’t even pretend to comprehend.
There are things on this planet that remain virtually inexplainable by conventional science, to the point that conventional scientists don’t in the first place even want to go there.
Point being, our view of the “sciences” this day is still constricted by limited thinking, almost religious dogmatism, and yes, agendas.
What’s going on with this climate BS is but merely one aspect of the sorry state of 21st century science.
E=hv, E^2=m^2*c^4+p^2*c^2, Frequency= speed/wavelength, p=mv, etc, all central to QFT and GR, as true now as they ever were.
Discoveries build on what we know, rather than supplant it entirely, at least that has been the trend since science started, the trend that gave rise to Maxwell’s Laws, quantum mechanics, relativity, etc.
I’m tempted to say that Mathematics is not, in and of itself, a “science”, but rather is a toolbox employed by scientists. While they usually go hand in hand, they are nevertheless two different things.
That said, to this day Einstein’s formula is still being challenged, as it should be. And who is to say that one day some prodigy with a 200 plus IQ isn’t going to fill a blackboard with a final formula that unravels a hundred years of certainty…and a thousand jaws will hit the floor because it suddenly becomes so obvious.
That’s the world of math…and science. And it may not be comfortable to admit, but faith has a role in it.
Who is to say what the future holds?
maybe its this:
https://orionsarm.com/
The fact is, we know what we know, even if its “wrong”.
Except F is NOT in fact equal m x a. That is a first order Taylor approximation to the relativistic quantitiy. Oh and the correct formulation is actually:
F(x,t) = m(x,t) * a(x,t) where x is a position, t is time (BTW what is ‘time’? Where does it reside? Have we ever observed it?) and all quantities are vectors. In addition, we are missing the relativistic forcing terms.
But keep doing you and assuming that everyone who disagrees with you has no advanced formal training in the subject, and has not received repeated academic scholarships and accolades.
From a Catholic point of view, mass times acceleration is propaganda, surely?
“Biden’s climate flunky, John Kerry, has lately been shamelessly regurgitating the “98% of scientists agree” crap.”
98% of scientists agree that they will lose their lucrative grants and steady paychecks if they express any disagreement.
As I said, you are smug. You are a typical resident of the lower realms of the science hierarchy, just a somewhat informed popularizer or devotee of the self-anointed guardians of truth. In reality, virtually EVERYTHING of modern cosmology is little more than a hunch or intuition. For instance:
“The crux of today’s cosmological paradigm is that in order to maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification.”
LOL.
Observation = empirical evidence, toots.
If you cant do the math, you know exactly squat, just like I know exactly squat about how to design gas-core reactors.
When you can come up with a consistent theory that can explain all observed phenomena over 40 orders of magnitude, let us all know, there’s a Nobel prize in it for ya. Until then, shut yer pie hole.
Not knowing everything is not the same as knowing nothing.
Force equals mass times acceleration, for over 300 years.
Tell us all, toots, which part of the Standard Model Lagrangian or the theory of General Relativity do you take issue with? Chances are, you know nothing of either, except what you get outta the NYT, etc.
Which equation is “wrong”, in your opinion? Again, you sit there using a technology that you can barely comprehend, and call the people who made it possible “self-anointed guardian of truth”.
Can you come up with anything better? Or are you just ideologically bent on crapping on everything mankind has come up with?
You are exactly the sort of person who locked Galileo up.
You have an incurable case. Needed for science to advance is deep awareness of its own limits and appreciation for the great own. My own conclusion is that some aspects of existence will be forever beyond human reckoning. Much of what we think we know is just a series of hunches and opinions anchored in some observation but powered primarily by unproved assumptions.
Just so you know, I have advanced credentials in a variety of disciplines. I am tired of children insisting that they know, for sure, how the universe was constituted.
I never said I know, toots.
You, on the other hand, seem to say “we know nothing.”, and also seem to come from the side that math and science are invented, as opposed to discovered, actually, you seem to be saying “the Big Bang never happened”, despite all the evidence to the contrary, like the expansion of the universe, the CMB, etc.
I have no doubt your “credentials” don’t include tensor analysis, and do include gender studies.
I took two courses in tensor analysis: General Relativity and another for Engineering Physics Very different methodologies I also studied De Rahm Cohomolgy (though to be honest that was a long time ago, and that course gave me – legit – headaches. I am clearly not an algebraist.)
I got fascinated enough by stochastic dynamics to then study mathematical finance under two of the top mathematical finance guys in the world. So I do have a bit of a pedigree. Funny, Instill haven’t seen a good definition of time. And me and a buddy who went on to study with Penrose and friends, we soent some time playing with a time-free cosmological model. We were having some interesting results, but we both had to drop it fairly quickly, and return to the ‘orthodox’ stuff so we could graduate in a reasonable time.
“After spending many years researching the foundations of cosmological physics from a philosophy of science perspective, I have not been surprised to hear some scientists openly talking about a crisis in cosmology. In the big “inflation debate” in Scientific American a few years ago, a key piece of the big bang paradigm was criticized by one of the theory’s original proponents for having become indefensible as a scientific theory.
Why? Because inflation theory relies on ad hoc contrivances to accommodate almost any data, and because its proposed physical field is not based on anything with empirical justification. This is probably because a crucial function of inflation is to bridge the transition from an unknowable big bang to a physics we can recognize today. So, is it science or a convenient invention?
A few astrophysicists, such as Michael J. Disney, have criticized the big bang paradigm for its lack of demonstrated certainties. In his analysis, the theoretical framework has far fewer certain observations than free parameters to tweak them—a so-called “negative significance” that would be an alarming sign for any science. As Disney writes in American Scientist: “A skeptic is entitled to feel that a negative significance, after so much time, effort and trimming, is nothing more than one would expect of a folktale constantly re-edited to fit inconvenient new observations.”
As I discuss in my new book, Metaphysical Experiments, there is a deeper history behind the current problems. The big bang hypothesis itself originally emerged as an indirect consequence of general relativity undergoing remodeling. Einstein had made a fundamental assumption about the universe, that it was static in both space and time, and to make his equations add up, he added a “cosmological constant,” for which he freely admitted there was no physical justification.
But when Hubble observed that the universe was expanding and Einstein’s solution no longer seemed to make sense, some mathematical physicists tried to change a fundamental assumption of the model: that the universe was the same in all spatial directions but variant in time. Not insignificantly, this theory came with a very promising upside: a possible merger between cosmology and nuclear physics. Could the brave new model of the atom also explain our universe?
From the outset, the theory only spoke to the immediate aftermath of an explicitly hypothetical event, whose principal function was as a limit condition, the point at which the theory breaks down. Big bang theory says nothing about the big bang; it is rather a possible hypothetical premise for resolving general relativity.
On top of this undemonstrable but very productive hypothesis, floor upon floor has been added intact, with vastly extended scales and new discrepancies. To explain observations of galaxies inconsistent with general relativity, the existence of dark matter was posited as an unknown and invisible form of matter calculated to make up more than a quarter of all mass-energy content in the universe—assuming, of course, the framework is universally valid. In 1998, when a set of supernova measurements of accelerating galaxies seemed at odds with the framework, a new theory emerged of a mysterious force called dark energy, calculated to fill circa 70 percent of the mass-energy of the universe.
The crux of today’s cosmological paradigm is that in order to maintain a mathematically unified theory valid for the entire universe, we must accept that 95 percent of our cosmos is furnished by completely unknown elements and forces for which we have no empirical evidence whatsoever. For a scientist to be confident of this picture requires an exceptional faith in the power of mathematical unification.
In the end, the conundrum for cosmology is its reliance on the framework as a necessary presupposition for conducting research. For lack of a clear alternative, as astrophysicist Disney also notes, it is in a sense stuck with the paradigm. It seems more pragmatic to add new theoretical floors than to rethink the fundamentals.
Contrary to the scientific ideal of getting progressively closer to the truth, it looks rather like cosmology, to borrow a term from technology studies, has become path-dependent: overdetermined by the implications of its past inventions.”
The Big Bang Theory is a consequence of the “Big Bang Theorem” in Differential Geometry. It requires the closure of at least one end of a parameter interval (e.g., t) which is tracing a geodesic, iirc.
Modern Cosmology: Assumptions and Limits “Physical cosmology tries to understand the universe at large with its origin and evolution. Observational and experimental situations in cosmology do not allow us to proceed purely based on the empirical means. We examine in which sense our cosmological assumptions in fact have shaped our current cosmological worldview with consequent inevitable limits. Cosmology itself, as in other branches of science and knowledge, is a construct of human imaginations, subject to social conditioning, and reflecting popular belief system of the era. The question at issue deserves further philosophic discussions.” JH, KIAS Newsletter (2011) Abstract
Total lies, like the idea that man invented math.
These are discoveries, not inventions.
You are essentially spouting then “new” math where 2+2 can equal five, because if math is just an invention, then heck, we can invent whatever we like, right?
You have succumbed to post-modernist clap-trap, toots.
LOL.
pure gobbledygook. 2+2=5 stuff.
“…overdetermined by the implications of its past inventions.” …like F=ma, which is over 300 years old, E=mc^2 which is over 100 years old, etc. The fonts here won’t let me post equations of GR or QFT, as they use super and sub-scripted symbols.
Equations please. If you can’t tell me what, say, the anti-derivative of y = x^2 or e^x is, you are totally numerically illiterate.
Easy to spout a bunch of gobbledygook, much harder to back it up with math and observations.
I eagerly await your new wisdom as to what is in fact happening, and there’s a Nobel prize in it for ya if you can do it well.
Equations at smalldeadanimals.com? Not the place. More fitting for this platform is a discussion of the limits and assumptions of modern cosmology.
Science, math, etc, is discovered, not invented.
That’s why climate “science”, sociology, etc, is just so much noise.
Careful, there aremplenty of examples of advanced mathematicians far better than you at math, who had not been exposed to Leibniz’s work.
Logicians and set theorists come to mind, for one thing.
Of course you refuse to acknowledge that the entire ‘discovered’ math you trumpet, rests on MASSIVE assumptions and axioms. You DO know about the assumptions inherent in integral calculus, right? Tell me you are aware of the assumptions and axioms of the Real Number system. Now state what led to us adopting those axioms and assumptions.
I’ll give you one that you haven’t considered, without which your calculus collapses in on itself:
The Least Upper Bound property.
Ya know, when you look at an apple on the table, you only have indirect evidence that its there. All you gots is some photons goin into yer eye. That’s it.
When we look at, say, gravitational lensing, we have the same, but, luckily, we have General relativity to tell us where the mass is to make such a lens, pretty much the same as we gots for the apple on the table.
If ya don’t like it, suck it up or come up with something better, but for cryin’ out loud, stop whining that we don’t know squat, because, in the end, you don’t even know if there’s an apple on the table, if ya wants to get pedantic.
So, you can sit there wondering of there is an apple, while I go and take a bite out of it.
And just like that, you ran screaming from epistemology and metaphysics, flapping your arms and shrieking like a banshee.
Epic.
So tired.
Misplaced evangelistic zeal, smugness and sexism = being very tired. You need a reset. As for gender studies, may they perish eternally. At least we agree on that.
I find this news exciting.
The current model suggests the early universe expanded like a gas but for decades I have thought the early universe boiled like a liquid.
When matter condensed out counter-intuitively gravity at any point would be zero, like the centre of the Earth there would be the same amount of matter in all directions cancelling out the gravitational pull. As the universe expanded space would appear in the form of bubbles. The gravitational forces of the surrounding matter would stop these bubbles collapsing. Eventually space would be a foam-like structure of matter with empty voids. There does seem to be evidence of this as I think I have read that there are ‘bubbles’ of galaxies surrounding huge voids.
Oh, and in my universe the speed of light is zero, and that gets really interesting when you work out the implications!
Has it changed your life, your personal reality?
Here is a good video by Sabine Hossenfelder re: Big Bang, named “Did the Big Bang happen?”:
https://youtu.be/CAVUvq6BE1E?feature=shared
Cheers,
/Johan
YeahWell… you’ve addressed many things but not the main point of the article. As we see more distant objects in our universe, back farther in time, we see galaxies that were fully formed too soon after the universe originated according to our models. That “observation” does not match our “model”. The observation isn’t wrong, so what about the model? You have touched on every kitchen sink theory except for what was central to the article. How did these enormous galaxies form so soon after the universe originated and why do they not obey the rate of galaxy formation predicted by our model? One explanation (plausible in my opinion) is that the universe is in fact much older than we think.
Here’s Bill Gaede’s youtube channel. He’s got a better grasp of physics than most modern physicists.
https://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede
All tribes have creation myths. It’s the human condition to ponder the future and wonder where we might have come from. We invent a story and usually include gods to explain the unknown. Many times these gods assume human form. The Greeks had a bunch, some of whom rogered their way through the mortals. Sometimes they fathered mortal children. Gods must be feared in order to be obeyed and many times they are vengeful.
Once we decided to have just one (monolithic) god we still couldn’t explain many things in the natural world but we came up with ideas like the hereafter, re-creation, heaven and hell. Again, all tribes have these myths. It’s not science it’s mythology.