Can you prove this using scientific methods?
Somemore you are making claims as facts
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Why we have to rethink the age of the Universe
- Thread starter Leongsam
- Start date
Somemore you are making claims as facts
You need to come up with a more cogent response than that.
You were the one who made claim as facts. Surely, you know how they produce an outcome using scientific methods.
Unless you think that the images from the James Webb are all fake the fact that the whole project has been a success means that the mathematics used to plan the whole operation are correct and the science used to design the cameras is validated.
How do you even verify those images are real? I wouldn’t even think it is real if I could never validate it.
You've either lost the plot or you're trolling. By your logic you have to travel to Paris to see the Eiffel Tower with your own eyes before you are convinced it actually exists.
If that is the case you certainly live in a very limited reality. I wonder how you get by from day to day.
About Big Bang, age of the universe, etc is not real science, but scientific speculation. Of course, this come from our definition of "true" science. One of the criterion is that it is falsifiable, that is by experiment. The age of the universe can never be experimentally verified.Webb Telescope Finds Evidence of Massive Galaxies That Defy Theories of the Early Universe
The six “universe breakers” appear much larger than what scientists thought was possible at that time
/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/accounts/headshot/Teresa_Nowakowski.png "Teresa Nowakowski")
Teresa Nowakowski
Daily Correspondent
February 24, 2023
:focal(350x237:351x238)/https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/filer_public/44/b0/44b00258-cc50-4e51-b5d0-c1337b736a46/low-res_massive1png.png "Six galaxies discovered by the James Webb Space Telescope")
Images of the six objects thought to be massive galaxies from the early universe NASA, ESA, CSA, I. Labbe (Swinburne University of Technology). Image processing: G. Brammer (Niels Bohr Institute’s Cosmic Dawn Center at the University of Copenhagen)
Astronomers have identified what appear to be six massive galaxies from the infancy of the universe. The objects are so massive, that if confirmed, they could change how we think of the origins of galaxies.
The findings, published Wednesday in Nature, use data from the James Webb Space Telescope’s infrared-sensing instruments to picture what the universe looked like 13.5 billion years ago—a time when it was just 3 percent of its current age.
Just 500 to 700 million years after the big bang, the potential galaxies were somehow as mature as our 13-billion-year-old Milky Way galaxy is now.
The mass of stars within each of these objects totals to several billion times larger than that of our sun, according to the research. One of them in particular might be as much as 100 billion times our sun’s mass. For comparison, the Milky Way contains a mass of stars equivalent to roughly 60 billion suns.
“You shouldn’t have had time to make things that have as many stars as the Milky Way that fast,” says Erica Nelson, an astrophysicist at the University of Colorado Boulder and a co-author of the study to Lisa Grossman of Science News. “It’s just crazy that these things seem to exist.”
Researchers expected to find only very small, young galaxies this early in the universe’s existence. How these “monsters” were able to “fast-track to maturity” is unknown, says Ivo Labbé, an astrophysicist at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia and the study’s lead researcher, in an email to Marcia Dunn of the Associated Press.
According to most theories of cosmology, galaxies formed from small clouds of stars and dust that gradually increased in size. In the early universe, the story goes, matter came together slowly. But that doesn’t account for the massive size of the newly identified objects.
“The revelation that massive galaxy formation began extremely early in the history of the universe upends what many of us had thought was settled science,” says Joel Leja, an astronomer and astrophysicist at Penn State and a co-author of the study, in a statement. “We’ve been informally calling these objects ‘universe breakers’—and they have been living up to their name so far.”
Emma Chapman, an astrophysicist at the University of Nottingham in England who was not involved in the research, tells the Guardian’s Hannah Devlin that these findings, if confirmed, could change how we conceive of the early universe. “The discovery of such massive galaxies so soon after the big bang suggests that the dark ages may not have been so dark after all, and that the universe may have been awash with star formation far earlier than we thought,” she tells the publication.
Still, it might not be time to rewrite cosmology just yet: The researchers say it’s possible some of the objects could be obscured supermassive black holes, and that what appears to be starlight in the images could actually be gas and dust getting pulled in by their gravity.
“The formation and growth of black holes at these early times is really not well understood,” Emma Curtis-Lake, an astronomer at the University of Hertfordshire in England who was not part of the study, explains to Science News. “There’s not a tension with cosmology there, just new physics to be understood of how they can form and grow, and we just never had the data before.”
To verify their findings, the researchers could take a spectrum image of the objects they’ve pinpointed. This would help reveal how old they are. Galaxies from the early universe appear to us as very “redshifted”—meaning the light they emitted has been stretched out on its long journey to Earth. The higher the redshift value, the more the light has been stretched and the more distant and aged the galaxy is. With spectroscopy, scientists could determine whether their potential galaxies, or “high-redshift candidates,” are as old as they appear, or if they are just “intrinsically reddened galaxies” from a more recent time, says Ethan Siegel, a theoretical astrophysicist who was not involved in the study, to CNET’s Eric Mack.
While Leja agrees that more observations are needed to confirm the findings, he notes in the statement, “Regardless, the amount of mass we discovered means that the known mass in stars at this period of our universe is up to 100 times greater than we had previously thought. Even if we cut the sample in half, this is still an astounding change.”
The Big Bang, blackhole, etc comes from Einstein's general relativity theory. It is all propaganda to raise Einstein to be an icon of intelligence by some parties. Space curvature can never be experimentally demonstrated. We could do an experiment to verify Newton's inverse law of universal gravitation using the Cavendish torsion balance. General relativity can never be experimentally verified.
Latest article:"Basic Electricity And Photon Energy Current".
http://www.emc2fails.com
Abstract:"There is great misconceptions and confusion about how energy is transmit-
ted by electric currents.The electric current carries no energy. It is the photon
energy current within current-carrying conductors that transmits electrical en-
ergy. The magnetic fields surrounding current-carrying conductors play no part
in electrical energy transmission. A simple classical derivation of Ohm’s law is
given. The working of the Zn/Cu Galvanic cell is examined; it is shown to be a
photon generator"
Chan Rasjid
The bending of light by gravity has been observed experimentally.
Last edited:
Empirical observation is not an "experiment"; bending of light must be lab verified to be experimental proof. Furthermore, it could be explained in many ways. Empirical observations is not enough a criterion for science.
What is your definition of "lab"? The whole universe is a lab when it comes to verification of scientific principles.
How about LIGO... the detection of gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein? Can that be considered to be a lab experiment?
Observed? By yourself? If no, I wouldn’t make such claim.
As explained clearly. I wouldn’t call it real if I can never validate it myself. That also means I wouldn’t call this as science if it cannot be verified easily.
Science is fictional if you cannot conduct experiment to prove the desired outcome.
If you would like to believe something that you have not verify by yourself like covid vaccine and inject it based on belief, that’s probably fiction for you
If you would like to believe something that you have not verify by yourself like covid vaccine and inject it based on belief, that’s probably fiction for you
Yes, science is constantly seeking answers to better understand our world. But creator?! Intelligent design? Are you serious?
Beware of these billion dollar experiments! Experimental evidence must be corroborated by other independent researchers before it could be considered good. All these new-age stuff like Higg's boson, quarks, etc are just fictions. Whoever could independently verify what their "experiments" found.
Many experiments until now are still controversial, but promoted by the media and the selected universities to be as settled; e.g. Michelson & Morley experiment(MMX), Eddington's observation of light bending around sun, etc. Science nowadays is about whose opinions the media supports or which are the influential universities.
In a paper of mine, I pointed out how the relativists rely on the one uncorroborated 1964 William Bertozzi (MIT) experiment to take as proven that mass increases with speed according to special relativity. Until now no one has independently repeated this simple experiment. Instead they prefer spending billions on LIGO, etc...so they say Newton's invariant mass refuted because William Bertozzi said so! My papers also explained why neutrino does not exists, but a Noble prize has already been given to certain Mr. So-and-so for experimentally confirming the detection of neutrinos. Nowadays much of modern physics are just scams and fraud.
The statement: "The bending of light by gravity has been observed experimentally." is logically flawed. It should be:"The bending of light by gravity has been confirmed experimentally."
This is the so called Eddington experiment when he took pictures of 1929 solar eclipse in India. Th controversy is whether we could trust the experiment. It is all about opinions. I don't trust Eddington because "Eddington said so.". Light bending has not been independently verified.
Acceptance in science is all about consensus of the majority - a huge majority. Even the efficacy of covid vaccines may be accepted if there is consensus, say 95%. Do we have?
Medical research experiments is the most untrustworthy; all manners of scams an frauds easily perpetrated. You cannot lie you have discovered anti-gravity or about free energy.
Similar threads
