Webb Telescope: Predictions and Findings
It's gonna be awesome. I'm betting it destroys the Big Bang Theory, already under assault and somewhat precarious. And m
Cool article by the BBC all about the Artemis II mission.
Just looking at their little module they're crammed in is making me feel claustrophobic.
Of course, yet both are recited as staples of a model that is actually heading toward oblivion, since I'm of a psychological bent, heading toward about the same status as Freud's "penis envy" is modernly. Just made up shyt that will be seen as ridiculous.
The term “Big Bang” is still used in cosmology, but not in the sense that you are thinking of. It does NOT refer to a singularity, an infinitely dense state of the universe. Modern models, based on data gathered from satellite measurements of the CMB, place an upper limit on the energy of the universe, hence no infinitely small, dense state.
So what is the Big Bang then? It is essentially a phase transition in the universe - yes, in modern cosmology the universe was existent before the Big Bang, just in a different state. The universe was in a state of exponential inflation for an undetermined amount of time. The Big Bang is a transition from this inflationary state to the current (still expanding, but not exponentially) state of the universe. It was accompanied by the release of the energy from the inflation field that drove the inflationary state. This energy was converted to high-energy radiation, which is still visible in severely red-shifted form, as the CMB. Particles - quarks and leptons - formed from this radiation in matter/antimatter pairs, with a small excess of matter (still not fully explained why this excess occurred). As the universe cooled these particles combined to form stable nuclei, mostly hydrogen, but some helium and traces of lithium, in amounts predicted by the model and consistent with observations. Further cooling and gravitational action led to neutral atoms, then dust clouds, galaxies, stars, etc.
Is this model perfect? Of course not. Could it be superseded? Certainly. But your arguments are just knocking down a straw man by criticizing features that are not part of the modern cosmological model. There was no singularity; no modern cosmologist would argue that there was.
Of course, yet both are recited as staples of a model that is actually heading toward oblivion, since I'm of a psychological bent, heading toward about the same status as Freud's "penis envy" is modernly. Just made up shyt that will be seen as ridiculous.
The term “Big Bang” is still used in cosmology, but not in the sense that you are thinking of. It does NOT refer to a singul
Over and over and over the singularity is referred to as an nearly infinitely dense point, was for decades, and yes, now this version is being scrapped for the ridiculousness that it is. Every nanosecond is actually part of a transition phase, and "Big Bang" is just a bullshyt term (as was "singularity"). The James Webb and AI will continue to establish this ever more clearly, imo, in effect laughing at this cartoonish model handed down from cosmology, which is the point of this thread. Agree? Disagree?
