PSI Blog 20211227 Webb telescope to confirm Infinite Universe Theory
As many
readers know, cosmogonists are $10-billion dollar-desperate to find evidence
for the “beginnings” of their silly expanding universe. The appropriate launch (on
Xmas, no less) of the 21’ James Webb Space Telescope marks the beginning of the
end for the Last Creation Theory. Being 100 times more powerful than the Hubble
telescope, and especially capable in the infrared, it will be able to observe
cosmological redshifts much beyond those associated with the imagined 13.8-billion-year
age of the universe. Observations that far back in time will have one of three main
results:
1. Empty space.
2. Scattered, young stars just beginning
to form.
3. Elderly galaxies similar to the Milky
Way and the two trillion galaxies already observed.
According to Infinite Universe Theory, if the Webb is at all successful,
still more elderly galaxies will be observed, providing yet another
falsification of the Big Bang Theory.
Posts
8 comments:
Strongly agree with #3. In fact, here are a few mature galaxies in the distant universe that we already know.
- XMM-2599
- SPT0418-47
- MRG-M2129
It's shocking how little attention they receive from big bang cosmologists.
How prevalent in terms of frequency are these mature galaxies in the distant universe? If it's only a handful, rather than at a frequency that is statistically insignificantly different to closer galaxies, then this points to those galaxies being unusual, not proof that the Big Bang didn't happen.
Luis:
Good question. No doubt the cosmogonists have already thought of that excuse. As Sahil has pointed out, there are many "elderly" galaxies already known. That does not seem to phase them, although I have not heard anyone explain why such "unusual" objects got there. BTW: Whenever I see a single squirrel, I automatically assume there probably are others around. It is possible my assumption is incorrect, but, as with The Ten Assumptions of Science, experience tells me I am right.
What's "many"? That could mean anything at all given the absolute numbers involved. Are we talking 0.5%? 5%? 50%? And again, do these differ significantly from the frequencies for closer galaxies? Relative frequency and correlation matter in science, not just the existence of anomalous cases. It isn't enough to simply find exceptions to a rule for the rule to be considered invalid as a general principle. If I find biological lineages that traverse many geological strata and have undergone little apparent evolution, it doesn't invalidate stratigraphy as showing a general chronological pattern predicted by macroevolution and extinction; macroevolution and mass extinctions are not invalidated thereby. If you want to use these galaxies as a disproof of the Big Bang, then you still need to explain why there is a strong correlation between age and maturity that just happens to be in the direction predicted by the Big Bang theory. Also, it is entirely valid to come up with new hypotheses to try to explain anomalous data that can nevertheless still fit within a broader theory. When Eldredge and Gould developed punctuated equilibria as an alternative to phyletic gradualism, this was not an "excuse" for evolution. Likewise, I don't see that novel explanations for unusual galaxies must be an excuse for the Big Bang unless they are ignoring a general pattern, which ironically may be what you're doing.
Luis, the BBT hypothesizes that as we look farther and farther into space we are seeing light that left when the universe supposedly was much younger. According to the theory, if we look back far enough we should see only stars or only hydrogen gas clouds. Every cosmological object at 13.75 Ga should be like babies in a crib. Finding an old man therein would be shocking indeed!
i think you should seriously reconsider how you view he infinite universe theory , there is such a lower probability that the universe we see continuous on and on forever , with planets , stars , galaxies and clusters of galaxies . our whole universe could be part of a piece of paper , a cup of water , a dust floating in space , it could literally be anything . what I'm saying is , our universe could have being started by a even much larger than the observable universe itself , an even that remixed the different densities of aether . I'm the saying that the universe started , I'm saying that our part of the universe , our dust , had a beginning .
all galaxies in our part of the universe are not eternal , they are all turning into dark stars , so if your claim is that our part of the universe is eternal , then all galaxies should be black holes . we could still find galaxies much older than the universe, maybe those galaxies survived the mixing event . my conclusion would be that James Webb telescope will see a lot of young galaxies and gas clouds . what we should be concerned about is how dramatic the un-mixing event will be , will there be giant pockets of low density aether rising from gas clouds , how will gravity behave in a much higher density aether , will there be a rotational curve of galaxies , did heavy aether(elements) condense immediately , how did increase aether density affect drag , are planets formed from stars our are they failed stars , why did the aether only produce microwaves(CMB) at the time does our initial condition have anything to do with this , and are we accelerating towards a very dense object .
"Luis, the BBT hypothesizes that as we look farther and farther into space we are seeing light that left when the universe supposedly was much younger. According to the theory, if we look back far enough we should see only stars or only hydrogen gas clouds. Every cosmological object at 13.75 Ga should be like babies in a crib. Finding an old man therein would be shocking indeed!"
Sure, but this doesn't address the statistical point I made: if the overall pattern is still in line with the BBT, then you haven't refuted it, only found evidence that it needs to be modified. Discoveries can be shocking while not overthrowing a theory. Biologists have sometimes been shocked by how quickly populations can evolve, but this doesn't refute macroevolution. Likewise, it's entirely conceivable that under certain conditions, stars and galaxies can form more quickly than hitherto thought.
Luis:
Remember that the universe has an infinite number of possibilities as well as an infinite number of impossibilities. The BBT hypothesizes there was nothing before the Big Bang. So if we look far enough, we should see nothing. So, if we see even one star or galaxy beyond a distance of 13.8 billion light years, that would falsify the current version of the theory. You are correct, however, in surmising that sophists will come up with ad hocs to save the theory in spite of our prediction there will be elderly galaxies older than 13.8 Ga. BTW: Probability only works for possibilities, not impossibilities.
Post a Comment