Got a link?
I do, as a matter of fact, love science, and the recent observations from the Webb telescope are very exciting.
If you're talking about that Eric Lerner article concerning the "tired light" hypothesis and the fact that recent observations from the Webb telescope appear to support his claims, you should also know that those same recent observations from the Webb telescope are also compatible with the standard model of cosmology (which incorporates the Big Bang). Additionally, the Big Bang remains supported by other independent observations that all point to the same place.
So, these observations do not disprove the Big Bang; they just tell us that some of our assumptions about it may have been wrong, which is very exciting from a scientific perspective.
I personally do not see why the Big Bang feels so threatening to some... I had a calculus professor who was both a Southern Baptist Sunday-School teacher and believed in the Big Bang. He worked with the men who first observed the cosmic background radiation (which had been predicted decades prior).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2022/08/26/webb-telescope-space-jupiter-galaxy/Got a link?
Not to open an epistemological can of worms, but "proof" in the philosophical sense is unimportant in this case. What we strive for is a model that explains our observations (even these recent ones), which is what we have in the standard model of cosmology, big bang, etc. Things that have happened in the past cannot be observed, sure, but that does not mean that we cannot observe what they have left behind and create a framework that is consistent with those observations e.g. And creating that framework does not mean we cannot build upon it in the future as we make new observations. In fact, I believe that's the best method we have to explain the world around us.Here’s a good article. Of course it doesn’t say the Big Bang has been disproven, it’s still an unproven theory. The key points that are always overlooked are:
- All science doesn’t belong in one bucket. There’s observational science (I can recreate and/or observe over and over again in the lab) and there’s historical science. Historical science is almost exclusively theory. It’s the study of what happened in the past and can’t be observed in order to be proven.
Assumptions founded in logic and observations do not lack "integrity;" they invite further investigation and understanding. Ideally, the process removes human factors, but those that remain can be isolated. What's far more prevalent is people with one toe in the science pool leveraging scientific ignorance into telling people what they already want to believe in (I am not pointing any fingers here) so that they can benefit in the form of page views, book sales, ticket prices, etc.- Historical science is full of mathematical models that have critical assumptions. Assumptions lack integrity. Today these assumptions are tainted by the prevailing world view of the scientific community.
Again, nothing in these observations contradicts the Big Bang. It only invites us to refine our understanding. Kind of like when Einstein added a "cosmological constant" to his equations of relativity so that they'd make sense... Further study and observations proved that the "cosmological constant" didn't belong, but the theory of general relativity remains. It's all extremely exciting and will result in some refined explanations of the universe.- The learnings from the James Webb Telescope have blown up the mathematical models that age the universe and trace it back to a Big Bang. because the assumptions were wrong
It ain't constant, but it's close enough, which is one of the reasons why there's some margin of error. Carbon dating produced results consistent with other methods of dating, such as dendrochronology, and carbon-dated items overwhelmingly align with what we expect based on other contexts.- Carbon dating has the same problem as it is a mathematical calculation that requires a critical assumption. You have to assume the starting 14C to 12C ratio is constant and at equilibrium. The problem is this ratio is actually not constant.