4 ms·
I don't have the scientific background to really argue with you on this; I'm just an enthusiastic amateur. That said: Big Bang does explain an awful lot of stu
by UIUC_06 4y ago
I don't have the scientific background to really argue with you on this; I'm just an enthusiastic amateur.
That said: Big Bang does explain an awful lot of stuff. I'm not sure what JWST observations you say call it into question, but wouldn't we need a lot more data before advancing Big Bounce or something else as an alternative?
- misja111 4y agoAs long as there is no direct evidence supporting the Big Bang theory, any other alternative is equally good IMO. The JSWT observations putting some doubt on the Big Bang theory are the observations of very old galaxies. E.g. one was observed at a time that the universe was only 250 million years old (according to BB theory), really not much on a cosmological time scale. The thing about this galaxy was, that it seemed like a pretty normal galaxy already. Which makes people wonder how it could have formed so quickly. Another observation casting doubt on the Big Bang theory is the (indirect) observation of some very early massive black holes. Again the question is how they could have formed so fast.
- UIUC_06 4y agoWell, ok. If direct evidence is what you want, cosmology is generally lacking in that. We're here, now, and nothing is going to change that.
- misja111 4y ago@UIUC_06: sure, I agree. The lack of direct evidence is more often a problem in cosmology. Some even refuse to call cosmology a science because of that. But if all of them are speculative, then why refuse any other theory than the BB theory in arxiv?