The idea that there ever was a singularity is already ruled out by observational evidence. The “primal atom” of the original idea by LeMaitre and the idea of an infinitely hot and sense singularity are both obsolete. The current “Big Bang” usage refers to the initial hot, dense state generated by the inflationary period that preceded it. The inflationary period was a period where no matter and radiation existed; the energy that existed was energy inherent to empty space. This energy, unlike matter and radiation, does not dilute with spatial expansion but remains constant. The result was a period of exponential expansion. Like any exponential growth, this has the property that for some time x, the size will double over that time. So at time 0, the universe would be at some size a, at time x it would be 2a, at time 2x it would be 4a, and so on.

However it is also a property of such growth that if we look at past times, the size of the universe at time -x would be a/2. At -2x it would be a/4 and so forth. The real important conclusion from this is that no matter how far back you go, the size cannot be zero. Therefore no singularity. In modern usage the term “Big Bang” refers to the event when inflation ceased and the energy from inflation was transformed into the dorms we are now familiar with - namely matter and radiation. This would have been a smaller, hotter, and denser state than the current universe, but not a singularity.

If your idea of overthrowing the Big Bang theory is proof that there never was a singularity, then the JW telescope will fail in that regard. That job is already done.

I'd say it's more akin to one person describing/quantifying the elephant with sight (light) and another doing the same with touch (mass).

Likewise, there is no big bang 'centre' possible to locate the coordinates of. The balloon was already made, as it were.
Now we have 'inflationary energy', dispersed to what volume and in what location? How was this energy created? How can matter and energy spring from this? How is it different to matter and radiation? Another exotic substance with no verification it exists or has existed. The foundation is sand in any case - there being no mainstream physical definition of "energy" in any context that is not circular, or physical.
Universe expansion, from infinite density or otherwise, is based on red shift being a reliable indicator of distance, more distant objects have greater red shift. Once this is debunked, which it was in the 1960s, the expanding universe is toasted. For evidence see red shifted quasars and galaxies alongside non-red shifted neighbours - these were Halton Arp's observations, long before JWST, which is ofc confounding astronomy because nobody seems capable of independent thought.

That's how we perceive identical circles in our peripheral vision. So a meter rod lying on the horizontal axis to our left or right we'll perceive as shorter than one in our central visual field. Same with the vertical axis above or below the central field.

Eye opener and very in tune with my OP for this thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPONga2vjw0

Meh. When the narrator begins by calling Michio Kaku a "renowned scientist" my bs detector activates. Not to mention that early in the video the narrator seems unaware that the singularity theory is no longer part of the conventional explanation.

Not that I'm digging my heels in on the current theory, but the video even mentions an error in the calculation of one redshifted galaxy.

Let's wait for a few years of actual analytics before the funeral.

Yeah. I just finished this on Audiobook. It's a good summary of what you're up against if you want to overthrow the Big Bang.

https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Cosmi...ook/1108799426

The shaky foundations of cosmology - Bjørn Ekeberg (Philosopher of Science)




PairTheBoard

Luv that. "Patchwork" adjustments. Bad foundation. "More convenient" to glom things onto the current model than to revamp it. It'll end up much worse than the wave/particle thing, which when failing, they said: "We have defined wave and particle as distinct. How can it be both? We've defined it." Likewise we knee jerk defined a lot of the standard model. They kind of mistake a 2+2=4 immutable definition, for our far more contingent definitions. The standard model is total BS and has less than .000000000001% of the data and understanding possible re the cosmos. Check.

My windows open: bet me.

He's very light on specifics in that interview. I'd like to know exactly what inconsistencies would make us question the idea that the laws of physics are different in different parts of the universe.

Black holes? Micro versus macro? Presupposing they are the same everywhere? Agreed he is light on details and substantiation. Saw the thing the other day about some sun/star discovered 100 billion times larger than our sun. Meh. It's all a virtual show of quantum mechanics which our senses are attuned to perceive. C and mind create it all out of the soup. I'm sticking with that. Winning.

JWST "breaking cosmology??

https://www.livescience.com/space/af...an-it-be-fixed

Trying to comprehend even a fraction of stuff like that makes my brain hurt

A little more:

https://www.space.com/james-webb-spa...23-discoveries

I'm betting multiverse is BS, singularity is BS, Big Bang is BS, string theory is BS, the current black hole understanding is BS, our quantum interpretations are BS, dark matter is BS, dark energy is BS, matter is BS -- for starters. I'm sure of it.

"We may have misunderstood the universe ..." says Nobel physicist. That's just my bet.

https://futurism.com/the-byte/adam-r...stood-universe

More radical change stuff mentioning all the dark matter, dark energy, Big Bang were just ad hoc solutions destined to fail:

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-b...r-dark-energy/

Uh, the article actually refutes the statement.

OTOH

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-b...omy-lies-2023/