"The Big Bang didn't happen" https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215

"The Universe is not expanding at all...the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space." http://sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html

What happens to the light as it travels through space? Its speed gradually decreases, due to interaction with vacuum particles, and as a result we measure redshift proportional to the distance travelled by the light:

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 8:17:21 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "The Big Bang didn't happen" https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215
>
> "The Universe is not expanding at all...the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space." http://sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
>
> What happens to the light as it travels through space? Its speed gradually decreases, due to interaction with vacuum particles, and as a result we measure redshift proportional to the distance travelled by the light:
>
> "Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light
>
> See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
>
> Pentcho Valev

Physicist Eric J. Lerner comes to the point:

To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”

The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic.

Although we didn’t usually hear of it, there’s been dissatisfaction with the Standard Model, which begins with the Big Bang, ever since it was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre nearly a century ago. But no one expected the James Webb Space Telescope to contribute to the debate.

The Big Bang theory crucially depends on the ‘inflation’ hypothesis that at the outset the universe expanded many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. But experiments have failed to prove evidence of cosmic inflation and since the theory’s inception it has been beset by deep puzzles. Now one of its founders, Paul Steinhardt has denounced the theory as mistaken and ‘scientifically meaningless’..

The current thinking is that the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis era produced 75% Hydrogen and 25% Helium (by weight) and a smattering of Lithium, but not much else. Then after 300 thousand years, the universe cooled down enough to produce atoms, and gravitational attraction slowly, slowly built up stars. The early ones were big enough to explode, and the shock waves sent through the hydrogen gas caused pockets to form that began star-making in earnest. But it still took 500 million years to get enough stars for a galaxy. Now the earlier a galaxy forms, the further back in time and the further away it is from astronomers today, and the further away it is the faster it is moving away from us. This movement causes the light to be redshifted. So robust is this relationship, that astronomers replace “time” with “red-shift”. But the Hubble Space Telescope could only see visible light, and those early galaxies were so red-shifted they were only “visible” in the infra-red, which is where the James Webb telescope shines. So one of the goals of the James Webb telescope was to see the earliest galaxies, and indeed, they’re seeing a lot.

So what does this mean for the standard model?

Theorists have an answer. Lot’s of clumpy dark matter to get the Hydrogen gas to clump early. Which leads to the question, “why isn’t the dark matter clumpy now?”.

That’s one possible solution. We know it’s science when it’s always posing challenges.

Light has a VARIABLE SPEED, and RED-SHIFT is caused by UNKNOWN behavior of space, involving every single branch of science
AS WE KNOW IT. So, our knowledge ONLY HAS "LOCAL VALIDITY", maybe ONLY a couple of light years AROUND US!

**********

So, einstenian relativity is a colossal DECEPTION, and the entire building of MODERN SCIENCE is completely FALSE beyond that radius.

Go figure, I say. Were they expecting that sacred constants like G, h, c, etc., would be valid 1 billion ly away or years ago?

As I always say: WE DON'T KNOW NOTHING, but arrogant ANTS posing as scientists think that they could replace GOD.

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 4:43:50 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”
>
> The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic.

This is not correct. NO theory is considered to be "an unquestionable truth", and no theory ever will be. If you actually knew how science works you would never make this claim.

> Although we didn’t usually hear of it, there’s been dissatisfaction with the Standard Model, which begins with the Big Bang, ever since it was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre nearly a century ago. But no one expected the James Webb Space Telescope to contribute to the debate.
Some scientists spend their entire careers trying to disprove current mainstream theories and that is what keeps science honest. An actual scientist welcomes such challenges because everyone is carried along by the wave of experimental and/or observational research. The reason that "we don't hear about it" is because no one has presented evidence strong enough to overturn the mainstream theory... but that is not to say that it can't be done!

> The Big Bang theory crucially depends on the ‘inflation’ hypothesis that at the outset the universe expanded many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. But experiments have failed to prove evidence of cosmic inflation and since the theory’s inception it has been beset by deep puzzles. Now one of its founders, Paul Steinhardt has denounced the theory as mistaken and ‘scientifically meaningless’.

So, just what evidence did Paul Steinhardt provide for his new view?
>
> The current thinking is that the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis era produced 75% Hydrogen and 25% Helium (by weight) and a smattering of Lithium, but not much else. Then after 300 thousand years, the universe cooled down enough to produce atoms, and gravitational attraction slowly, slowly built up stars.. The early ones were big enough to explode, and the shock waves sent through the hydrogen gas caused pockets to form that began star-making in earnest. But it still took 500 million years to get enough stars for a galaxy. Now the earlier a galaxy forms, the further back in time and the further away it is from astronomers today, and the further away it is the faster it is moving away from us. This movement causes the light to be redshifted. So robust is this relationship, that astronomers replace “time” with “red-shift”. But the Hubble Space Telescope could only see visible light, and those early galaxies were so red-shifted they were only “visible” in the infra-red, which is where the James Webb telescope shines. So one of the goals of the James Webb telescope was to see the earliest galaxies, and indeed, they’re seeing a lot.
>
> So what does this mean for the standard model?
>
> Theorists have an answer. Lot’s of clumpy dark matter to get the Hydrogen gas to clump early. Which leads to the question, “why isn’t the dark matter clumpy now?”.
>
> That’s one possible solution. We know it’s science when it’s always posing challenges.
>
> Light has a VARIABLE SPEED, and RED-SHIFT is caused by UNKNOWN behavior of space, involving every single branch of science
> AS WE KNOW IT. So, our knowledge ONLY HAS "LOCAL VALIDITY", maybe ONLY a couple of light years AROUND US!

And what evidence do YOU have to support this off-the-wall claim? Once again you look like a common crank...
>
>
> **********
>
> So, einstenian relativity is a colossal DECEPTION, and the entire building of MODERN SCIENCE is completely FALSE beyond that radius.
>
> Go figure, I say. Were they expecting that sacred constants like G, h, c, etc., would be valid 1 billion ly away or years ago?
>
> As I always say: WE DON'T KNOW NOTHING, but arrogant ANTS posing as scientists think that they could replace GOD.

We know for sure that YOU don't know much, there is plenty of evidence in your own words in this forum to support that!

Any redshift/blueshift, in particular the Hubble redshift, is a direct consequence of two foundational principles in future, Einstein-free physics (the second principle is a corollary of the first):

1. The wavelength of light is invariable.

2. Any frequency shift is caused by a proportional speed-of-light shift.

The same holds true for the gravitational redshift/blueshift:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. Its speed increases as it is falling. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, we should observe the same effect for light. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

The same holds true for the Doppler redshift/blueshift:

"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity Vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: V' = V+Vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f' = V'/λ = (V+Vo)/λ." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 8:43:50 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2022 at 8:17:21 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > "The Big Bang didn't happen" https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215
> >
> > "The Universe is not expanding at all...the redshift of light with increasing distance must be caused by some other phenomena – something that happens to the light itself as it travels through space." http://sci-news.com/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
> >
> > What happens to the light as it travels through space? Its speed gradually decreases, due to interaction with vacuum particles, and as a result we measure redshift proportional to the distance travelled by the light:
> >
> > "Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation.. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light
> >
> > See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> >
> > Pentcho Valev
> Physicist Eric J. Lerner comes to the point:
>
> To everyone who sees them, the new James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) images of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspiring. But to most professional astronomers and cosmologists, they are also extremely surprising—not at all what was predicted by theory. In the flood of technical astronomical papers published online since July 12, the authors report again and again that the images show surprisingly many galaxies, galaxies that are surprisingly smooth, surprisingly small and surprisingly old. Lots of surprises, and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper’s title begins with the candid exclamation: “Panic!”
>
> The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic.
>
> Although we didn’t usually hear of it, there’s been dissatisfaction with the Standard Model, which begins with the Big Bang, ever since it was first proposed by Georges Lemaitre nearly a century ago. But no one expected the James Webb Space Telescope to contribute to the debate.
>
> The Big Bang theory crucially depends on the ‘inflation’ hypothesis that at the outset the universe expanded many orders of magnitude faster than the speed of light. But experiments have failed to prove evidence of cosmic inflation and since the theory’s inception it has been beset by deep puzzles. Now one of its founders, Paul Steinhardt has denounced the theory as mistaken and ‘scientifically meaningless’.
>
> The current thinking is that the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis era produced 75% Hydrogen and 25% Helium (by weight) and a smattering of Lithium, but not much else. Then after 300 thousand years, the universe cooled down enough to produce atoms, and gravitational attraction slowly, slowly built up stars.. The early ones were big enough to explode, and the shock waves sent through the hydrogen gas caused pockets to form that began star-making in earnest. But it still took 500 million years to get enough stars for a galaxy. Now the earlier a galaxy forms, the further back in time and the further away it is from astronomers today, and the further away it is the faster it is moving away from us. This movement causes the light to be redshifted. So robust is this relationship, that astronomers replace “time” with “red-shift”. But the Hubble Space Telescope could only see visible light, and those early galaxies were so red-shifted they were only “visible” in the infra-red, which is where the James Webb telescope shines. So one of the goals of the James Webb telescope was to see the earliest galaxies, and indeed, they’re seeing a lot.
>
> So what does this mean for the standard model?
>
> Theorists have an answer. Lot’s of clumpy dark matter to get the Hydrogen gas to clump early. Which leads to the question, “why isn’t the dark matter clumpy now?”.
>
> That’s one possible solution. We know it’s science when it’s always posing challenges.
>
> Light has a VARIABLE SPEED, and RED-SHIFT is caused by UNKNOWN behavior of space, involving every single branch of science
> AS WE KNOW IT. So, our knowledge ONLY HAS "LOCAL VALIDITY", maybe ONLY a couple of light years AROUND US!
>
>
> **********
>
> So, einstenian relativity is a colossal DECEPTION, and the entire building of MODERN SCIENCE is completely FALSE beyond that radius.
>
> Go figure, I say. Were they expecting that sacred constants like G, h, c, etc., would be valid 1 billion ly away or years ago?
>
> As I always say: WE DON'T KNOW NOTHING, but arrogant ANTS posing as scientists think that they could replace GOD.

Actually, panic is not the exact feeling of these parasites.

Being that BBT were reaching to a DEAD POINT, now they are securing a "parasitic line of work" for 100 years. Go Webb Telescope!

Strange revelation:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/08/you-dont-expand-just-because-universe.html [Note also the shrewd comments by Ambi Valent and the not shrewd at all answers by Sabine Hossenfelder].

So honest Einsteinians apply the expansion solutions only to voids deprived of galaxies; to galaxies and galactic clusters they apply nonexpansion solutions. Why? Because, if Einsteinians applied expansion solutions to galaxies and galactic clusters, observations would immediately disprove the theory. If the universe were expanding, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort galaxies and galactic clusters - e.g. fringes only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. No distortions observed. The universe is clearly not expanding.

See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On 2022-08-16 10:28:04 +0000, the notably dishonest quote-miner Pentcho
Valev said:

Something about

> honest Einsteinians ...

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

"Twenty-four astronomers and physicists from ten countries have signed a petition protesting the censorship of papers that are critical of the Big Bang Hypothesis by the open pre-print website arXiv." https://www.lppfusion.com/scientists-protest-censorship-in-cosmology/

Pentcho Valev

On Tuesday, 16 August 2022 at 02:43:18 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:

> This is not correct. NO theory is considered to be "an unquestionable truth", and no theory ever will be.

Does it include your theory, that " NO theory is considered to be "an unquestionable truth", and no theory ever will be.",
poor Al?

On August 15, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Panic? Au contraire...
https://www.avenuefive.edu/cosmetology-industry-statistics/

The cosmetology industry is booming -

--
Rich