That's exactly what the lunchtime news guy said when reporting on this.

This is awesomeness.

Text Nostradamus with a question like that.

Oh yeah! Early returns look promising as "panic" starts for the standard model. Long way to go but it just couldn't have been a better start for the above prediction.

https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang...ppen-auid-2215

interesting stuff. Plasma cosmology is also required to explain the coronal temperature of the Sun, which should be lower than its surface according to a thermo-nuclear model ie that hot bodies lose heat radially, like dur. Hannes Alfven's magnetic wave model is still the leading model to explain this, but since it is incompatible with thermonuclear, there is no existing model to explain solar temps in standard texts!

Oh yeah: "The Big Bang No Longer Means What It Used To Mean."

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-b...-bang-meaning/

I'm gonna get a flippin' Nobel Prize if this keeps up:

https://www.universetoday.com/157264...e-interesting/

Amazing mental gymnastics. So they definitely require a 'dark age' according to inflationary-non-matter period followed by plasma period before stars can form. Yet the data shows in fact there must have been galaxies during the expected time of the dark age. Presumably there will be some adjustment to the model - apparently now known as 'Trigger's broom theory', had the handle changed 16 times and the brush changed 8 times but it's definitely the same brush. "inflation" is incredible as an alternative to "matter" and "radiation" ie observable stuff that exists. As with dark matter, anything goes.
I must be out of the loop because galactic redshift has always been explained as a doppler shift (though there is no reason to assume it must be) and indicative of relative velocity, rather they claim that "space" itself is expanding, the framework as it were rather than the actual matter existing inside it - we aren't continually stretching out I assume.

Misleading headlines about BB and standard model concerning JWST, says the speaker here. I don't mind acknowledging the other side of things, unlike, say, true believers. I suspected this about some of the recent headlines, but I have the same long range prediction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOuLhS3KKQE

Well, as long as you don't mind acknowledging mistakes, the "panic" you're referring to is from ArXiv:2207.09428 titled Panic! At the Disks: First Rest-frame Optical Observations of Galaxy Structure at z > 3 with JWST in the SMACS 0723 Field.

The title is an obvious joke and reference to the band Panic! At the Disco. The paper itself is about is about structure formation in high red shifted galaxies. If physicists actually thought they had data contradicting the big bang, they wouldn't name their preprint after a mid 2000s emo band.

First of all, do not underestimate the concept of "click-bait" and "follow the money". Many, if not most of the links will have ads and the creators make something like $0.001 to $0.005 whenever someone visits a page. They take advantage of when scientists find something and (very rightly) say: "we don't know". But then ignore the follow-up statement: "we need to look into this further".

Some of this reminds me of "Tabitha's star".

Too many people latch on to one, of many, hypotheses that are proposed to explain something and elevate it to theory incorrectly.

In fact you would normally construct a hypothesis with some expectation of verification, or refutation, using the data rather than being constantly bamboozled by every new observation.

Yeah, it’s weird to read some of the actual papers, university press releases and Astro blogs then come to a place like this and see the conversation bearing 0 resemblance to what is going on. Not just the technical details, but even just a pop level summary of what is going on

Yes I know. That's one of the misleading headlines I referred to obviously.

Cool!

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...bang-interview

Don't even know why they are calling it Phantom Galaxy, misleading again I'm sure ... but it says in my theory they are all phantom actually, and the JWST will provide data that eventually leads to this conclusion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GY_GgDr_AR4

looks... electric.

"Shouldn't be there" by conventional model ... lol.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/scient...mes-webb-stuff

Right now, it really feels like we're in one of those watershed moments, and the discoveries made today may well lay the foundation for future breakthroughs, even if they're decades down the line.

---

At least they're doubling down on their conceit, rather than admitting that it's all conjecture.

I wasn't ready for that. I was listening to a Closer to Truth episode called "What is nothing" and heard something outrageous. He was going around interviewing a bunch of eggheads about "Why isn't there nothing instead of something?" He gets to Victor Stenger, and Stenger says, "The answer to that is the universe is nothing." I laughed out loud, and did again just writing that. Physicists: you can't live with them and you can't live without them.

To me there seems kind of a double problem in the question. "Nothing" -- no thing -- is kind of a self-contradiction, is it not? And, when we say "What IS nothing" ... the very word "is" already presumes existence. So "is nothing" seem bogus and impossible.

Also, with their discussion of "Well, there will always have to be possibility." That took me straight to quantum mechanics, as isn't that about pure possibility? Then Stenger explained his comment, saying: "Nothing is highly unstable. All this is a fluctuation/crystallization of nothingness."

JWST will answer it. Bank on it. In fact they already have the data to answer such questions, but they are looking at it saying: "Are you effing kidding me? I don't believe it." I'll put it right here in my thread when they come out with the answer.

'no thing' is analogous to noumenon while 'some thing' is akin to phenomenon. 'Some things' are discoverable by the scientific method, eggheads are concerned with the phenomenal. Quantum mechanical *phenomena* are, by definition, observable, real. Information, or knowledge, is a pre-requisite for the manifestation of, say, a raw noumenal probabilistic condition into existence on the phenomenal plane. This makes perfect sense, as how else can information be interpreted, by man at least, without sensibility. In its noumenal form, the unknowable, the divine, deity etc is to the "physicist" some statistical anomaly. Or perhaps vice versa: what may be termed 'wave function noumena' are a statistical standard while the phenomenon is a one in a trillion chance coincidence. JW collects light, promising to reveal as little about events outside the phenomenal plane as its predecessor. It's just a telescope.

https://dailygalaxy.com/2022/10/does...eport-weekend/

I do think and believe that the universe will be proven virtual, with an aid to the JWST along the lines of these phenomena. With quantum mechanics and the attunement of our senses to their "show" being a central part of the puzzle.

Oh yeah. Sticking with my position that the whole cosmological picture is going to fall ... that our current understanding is akin to the blind man feeling the elephants trunk thing, but more like feeling one molecule of the elephant and thinking he has a grasp on it.

https://www.space.com/james-webb-spa...axies-surprise

"Unchartered territory. Standard model in jeopardy."

It's not a hot take to predict that our whole understanding is anemic, knee-jerk (especially the Big Bang), in its infancy, etc.

https://phys.org/news/2023-04-james-...pe-images.html