re: No matter what direction we point a telescope, we always look toward the Big Bang - why?

quote:

---

We don't because, the best we know, it is expanding at the speed of light.

---

Mostly what you say is correct but I have to correct you on this point. Space is not expanding at the speed of light. It's expanding at about 45 miles per megaparsec (3.26 million light years).

quote:

---

No matter what direction we point a telescope, we always look toward the Big Bang - why?

---

Cuz that mudderfricker big that’s why

If all matter was once a singular point then technically anything you look at was once part of that single point at the Big Bang

If that’s what they are trying to say it’s not as mind blowing as you would think

quote:

---

The law(s) of Entropy say the Big Bang is impossible.

---

1. No they don't.
2. The laws of physics didn't exist until space banged into existence.

quote:

---

The farthest galaxy that Webb has already identified is causing some issues with the Big Bang theory. I don’t have the specifics

---

quote:

---

Also, there’s an active movement within the international science community refusing to acknowledge and publish any papers questioning the theory, even if written by legitimate scientists. Guess they’re adopting the Covid scientific method.

---

quote:

---

I never quite got over one of the Big Bang's fundamental premises, that the distance between all galaxies in the universe was 0 at one point in time.

---

When the distance was zero, there weren't galaxies or stars. There weren't even atoms. Kind of just a lot of energy.

quote:

---

Say what? All the smartest theoretical mathmeticians in the world can say so, but does that pass the facial smirk test?

---

I think that's far from the weirdest thing about the universe.




I still think odds are good that our universe is a simulation.

quote:

---

The farthest galaxy that Webb has already identified is causing some issues with the Big Bang theory.

---

That's great!

quote:

---

I don’t have the specifics

---

lol

quote:

---

apparently the wavelength of the galaxy is too advanced for what it should be relative to the current theory.

---

That's awesome! That is what Webb is designed for, to gather data so we can expand our understanding.

Seems unrelated, but pertinent as it gets at the root of how we perceive (limited) and observe reality (again limited)

The quote I posted earlier in a thread was by man (McKenna) who pursued this extensively

https://www.vice.com/en/article/z34xa5/the-long-strange-relationship-between-psychedelics-and-telepathy

quote:

---

The Long, Strange Relationship Between Psychedelics and Telepathy

---

quote:

---

The word telepathy was coined in the 1880s by a British classicist named Frederick Myers, who helped found the Society for Psychical Research in London. (The word telepathy comes from the Greek root tele, meaning “from a distance,” and pathos meaning “feeling.”) He looked at thousands of case studies of people who—usually as they were close to dying—reported having communications with loved ones, and Myers would seek to confirm that those loved ones received the messages. Many of the well-known names associated with the early days of psychedelic research were involved in experiencing and testing the parapsychological, including Albert Hofmann, Humphrey Osmond, Aldous Huxley, Gordon Wasson, Timothy Leary, Ken Kesey, Walter Pahnke, Al Hubbard, and Stanislav Grof, to name a few.

---

quote:

---

Humphry Osmond, who coined the word “psychedelic,” reported that in 1957, he and researcher Duncan Blewett had a telepathic experience while taking mescaline. They “successfully transmitted telepathic information in an informal experiment to such a degree that an independent observer became acutely panicky at the uncanniness of the event, though, unfortunately, no formal experiment with a larger sample is reported,” Luke wrote. Osmond’s close friend, the writer Aldous Huxley, promoted French philosopher Henri Bergson’s theory of the brain as a filter which reduced information, like sensory inputs or memories, so reality wasn’t so overwhelming. Bergson wrote that without that filter, people might be able to remember everything that had ever happened to them, or perceive everything occurring in the universe—accessing a kind of clairvoyance. Huxley thought this was how psychedelics could lead to telepathy. He wrote that psychedelics might turn off the “reducing valve” in the brain, and people could be telepathic and have access to other mystical experiences. This theory is directly related to the title of his book, The Doors of Perception, which comes from a William Blake quote, “If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear to man as it is, infinite.”

---

This concept is important (we only sense a small component of reality)
The band “The Doors” name was inspired by this…

More detail why this reduced capacity to perceive may have been advantageous from an evolutionary perspective:

https://www.ted.com/talks/donald_hoffman_do_we_see_reality_as_it_is

quote:

---

Do we see reality as it is?

---

quote:

---

Cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman is trying to answer a big question: Do we experience the world as it really is ... or as we need it to be? In this ever so slightly mind-blowing talk, he ponders how our minds construct reality for us.

---

TL:DW

Our brain has evolved to limit perception to only things that improve genetic/reproductive fitness

There are broader perceptions in the total of reality that we cannot typically tap into as these perceptions would overwhelm our ability to reproduce/thrive in current modern constructs

All of this relates to this thread because it points out that science will always be limited by what it can perceive and quantify. Our realm is much more mysterious and ineffable.

quote:

---

All of this relates to this thread because it points out that science will always be limited by what it can perceive and quantify.

---

We are well aware of our limited perception and a whole lot of science is done with tools we've built to perceive what we can't. Why do you think science is limited by our senses?