Scientists Say We Were Wrong About the Big Bang and the Universe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaouTS072ew

Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not
that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/08/you-dont-expand-just-because-universe.html

So Hossenfelder tells us that cosmologists apply the expansion solutions only to voids deprived of galaxies; to galaxies and galactic clusters they apply nonexpansion solutions. Why do cosmologists resort to this trick? Because, if they applied expansion
solutions to galaxies and galactic clusters, observations would immediately disprove the theory. If the universe were expanding, the competition between expansion and gravitational attraction would distort galaxies and galactic clusters - e.g. fringes
only weakly bound by gravity would succumb to expansion and fly away. No distortions observed. The universe is clearly not expanding.

Then how about the cosmological (Hubble) redshift? It is due to light gradually slowing down as it travels through intergalactic space. The idea that vacuum slows down light is largely discussed but only in terms of quantum gravity. The implication that
the Hubble redshift might be due to gradually decreasing speed of starlight is persistently ignored:

"...in some quantum-gravity models, the speed of photons in gamma rays would be affected by the grainy nature of spacetime..." https://fqxi.org/community/articles/display/255

Sabine Hossenfelder: "It's an old story: Quantum fluctuations of space-time might change the travel-time of light. Light of higher frequencies would be a little faster than that of lower frequencies. Or slower, depending on the sign of an unknown
constant. Either way, the spectral colors of light would run apart, or 'disperse' as they say if they don't want you to understand what they say. Such quantum gravitational effects are miniscule, but added up over long distances they can become
observable. Gamma ray bursts are therefore ideal to search for evidence of such an energy-dependent speed of light." http://backreaction.blogspot.fr/2017/01/what-burst-fresh-attempt-to-see-space.html

"Some physicists, however, suggest that there might be one other cosmic factor that could influence the speed of light: quantum vacuum fluctuation. This theory holds that so-called empty spaces in the Universe aren't actually empty - they're teeming with
particles that are just constantly changing from existent to non-existent states. Quantum fluctuations, therefore, could slow down the speed of light." https://www.sciencealert.com/how-much-do-we-really-know-about-the-speed-of-light

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The danger is growing and mainstream cosmologists are forced to launch fierce counterattack against Big Bang deniers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeUkVqDZjA&t=152s

However in this particular video Brian Keating is more than unconvincing. Here is a comment to the video:

David Blette: << I’m 10 minutes into the video and as of yet I have only seen two attacks on the author of the article attacking the big bang theory.

The first attack hinted that the author of the article may just be trying to sell his book that discredits the big bang theory. The second charge against the author was that he used the emotionally loaded word “panic”.

I hope the rest of the video is better than this.

Then after sowing doubt about the current calibration of the James Webb telescope, he goes on to accuse the author of the article of sowing doubt about a theory.

So, the speaker speculates that the billion dollar telescope that’s giving us the new data that seems to go against the big bang theory is not calibrated correctly, therefore criticizing the theory is sowing doubt. Nice one…

OK now I’m over 20 minutes into the video and the speaker continues to attack the author of the article for trying to sell a book and using the loaded term panic.

He then talks about the “discovery” of dark matter discredit the authors theory. Sorry dark matter is something that we have a very incomplete understanding of. Using your theoretical interpretation of what dark matter is to discredit someone else’
s theory is nonsense.

So let me sum up the arguments that are being used and will be used for the rest of this video. “The author of the article is a bad person. Any new data that goes against the big bang theory is due to calibration errors, the end.” >>

Tomorrow Brian Keating is going to attack Big Bang deniers again:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLT05w79c64

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The second counterattack

Brian Keating, This Proves the Big Bang Happened https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLT05w79c64

was even more disappointing than the first one:

Brian Keating, Did the Big Bang Happen? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYeUkVqDZjA&t=152s

Mainstream cosmologists are not very intelligent, to say the least.

See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)