Since the James Webb Space Telescope started sending back data there have declarations that it has “broken the universe” or disproved the Big Bang. Equally so, there have been many declarations by the bastions of the standard consensus models, who insist you have faith in their experts who say that the universe and the BB are just fine, that they just need to tweak the model to bring it inline with these latest observations.
Did JWST disprove the Big Bang? Technically, no. The BB was already disproven and these latest images revealing incredibly huge bright galaxies at what is, according to the model, supposed to be just a few hundred million years after the BB, is in fact, just another nail in the coffin of the BB.
In his book, ‘The Big Bang Never Happened’, Eric Lerner not only discusses the Big Bang’s many failures to predict that have required Ptolemaic ad hoc adjustments bringing rise to undetectable dark energy and dark matter, but also how BB has evolved into a paradigm that is not to be questioned. Or in the case of esteemed science celebrity Neil deGrasse Tyson, who, in one of his books states that “we know” this and that about the BB event. Which is problematic as a scientific statement, for we lack any access to such a distant time, in the similar manner we lack access to these distant galaxies and therefore any claims anyone makes are speculative if not bordering on assumptive.
The bastions of standard model consensus refer to Mr Lerner as one who is peddling pseudoscience, for which they offer no evidence as they seek to discredit him rather than actually argue against the science presented by Mr Lerner. And when it comes to pseudoscience, the Big Bang theory is, ironically a perfect example. It is a theory based on an unproven assumption: that the observed redshift first seen by Hubble is due to an expanding universe and is purely a Doppler Effect. While this is certainly possible, it is not guarenteed nor is it empirically proven. There are several other possible explanations, that may or may not be correct, but the reality is, we have no real means for validating any of them empirically.
From this assumption of an expanding universe, we are given other assumptions to align the theory with newer unexpected observations. Whether it be dark matter to explain what is perceived as a lack of mass, to dark energy to explain what is believed to be a increase in expansion. One assumption is one thing, but when you start layering assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions, you are no longer in the realm of science fact but lost in science fiction/fantasy and potentially peddling pseudoscience.
Often when discussing the failures of the Big Bang, I will receive comments suggesting it is either, the best or only model we have. Such statements speaks volumes about the lack of awareness of alternative theories that do exist, but are rarely discussed in the media or by science celebrities such as Tyson, who with a faith that is more appropriate for the dogma of religion than truth seeking science espouse their belief in the Big Bang as fact.
QUESTIONING SCIENCE 