Science is debunking itself again

as it has done many times over the centuries.
This time its about the big bang and the origin of the universe.

But particular subject doesn't matter, big bang, evolution, climate change, will all eventually get their debunking.

Is There a Crisis in the Cosmos - (NYT paywall avoided)

quote:

---

According to the standard model, which is the basis for essentially all research in the field, there is a fixed and precise sequence of events that followed the Big Bang: First, the force of gravity pulled together denser regions in the cooling cosmic gas, which grew to become stars and black holes; then, the force of gravity pulled together the stars into galaxies.

The Webb data, though, revealed that some very large galaxies formed really fast, in too short a time, at least according to the standard model. This was no minor discrepancy. The finding is akin to parents and their children appearing in a story when the grandparents are still children themselves.

It was not, unfortunately, an isolated incident. There have been other recent occasions in which the evidence behind science’s basic understanding of the universe has been found to be alarmingly inconsistent.

---

It seems that all "scientific" theories about creation defy the 1st law of thermo and require at least one miracle.

It's a discrepancy between two ways to measure the expansion of the universe that will likely be resolved when we get better data as there are new ways that will be used to get a measurement.

It's really amazing how far we've come in understanding the expansion since Hubble's first measurements 100 years ago.

quote:

---

It's a discrepancy between two ways to measure the expansion of the universe that will likely be resolved when we get better data as there are new ways that will be used to get a measurement.

---

You sure that is all it is?

Advertisement

quote:

---

OP is an idiot and probably shouldn’t read articles dealing with expansion, the cosmos, quantum field theory, etc.

---

Well the explain it to us like the children you think we are, smart guy.

quote:

---

Did you enjoy your visit to the Ark Encounter in Kentucky?

---

I didn't say debunked in religious terms.

Simulation

quote:

---

And now new data from the Webb have exacerbated the problem. This trend suggests a flaw in the model, not in the data.

---

I appreciate this comment in the article. This is the way science should be done (and is done for the most part). Develop a model, test the model, gather data and see if the data fits the model. If the data does not fit the model, measure better or get a new model.

The climate science and vaccine industry does not approach science like this. Climate science and the vaccine industry approach science by developing a model and mold data to fit model and declare, IT'S SCIENCE!

quote:

---

This is what happens when the "theory" is developed to fit a preferred conclusion.

---

I don't think it was developed to fit a conclusion, but I think it's become so commonly cited that it is considered (by many) to only be a "theory" in a textual sense (essentially looking at it, and using it, as if it were a concrete law).

Some people can be incredibly resistant to change, when they are in scientific fields they are the primary ones to think of science as concrete rather than fluid.