BE A SHAME IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO IT

>>16712018 (OP)
"NONONONONO, my beautiful lambda cold dark matter model! this can't be! the math is so beautiful, I can't have this empirical evidence fucking up my beautiful autistic mathematical formulas!

I can fix this, I can fix this, I just need to come up with another new magical invisible force to explain why galaxies full of nitrogen and carbon and shit were forming less than 300 million fucking years after my (((big bang))), I can call it, uhhh, 'beige cosmic unicorn fart energy'!"

This is good and shows we should invest so much more in instrumentation that lets us see previously unseen regimes. Webb was expensive but the bet seems to be paying off.

>>16712035
Hell no, no more post processed pictures of light dots. You astronomers should Stick to your only useful Tasks, watching the Sun and near earth asteroids

>>16712043
Not understanding the information is not the same as the information being useless

>>16712018 (OP)
>hubble deep field:
Somehow we're right back here once again. Fucking charlatans. They're never going to figure it out, are they?

Hubble tension too tight, finna snap

>>16712031
All that following this "science" has taught me is that we actually know precisely fucking nothing about the universe and cosmology is all pseudoscience. Better focus on more practical applications and just accept the fact that we can't know any real truth about how the large scale universe works - and that doesn't make a lick of difference for human life.

Look, just because cosmologists, the retarded third cousin of astronomers, who in turn are the adopted downs syndrome kids of the astrophysicists, who are the wine aunts with failed marriages to the post-newtonian mechanisists, BELIEVE that speculating on the consequences of various empirically derived laws on scales inaccessible to experiment is a worthwhile endeavour, that does not mean actual real physicists (condensed matter materialists) think that.

Just look at what fields have the most clowns in social media. That's right. Quantum goys and Astrotards.

>>16712043
we haven't even discovered everything big within the gravitational escape velocity of sol yet.

things that we can actually reach out and touch if we tried.

>>16712251
They know. But a static eternalist model of the universe is incompatible with current political interests.

>>16712031
The paper in your image is moronic on many levels. Firstly it's not even assuming LCDM. They invoke some ancient galaxy formation model inspired by MOND and plug in random numbers. If the CMB were significantly concentrated by galaxies, it could be resolved by higher resolution telescopes. The fact that this isn't observed falsifies the paper.

>why galaxies full of nitrogen and carbon and shit were forming less than 300 million fucking years
What exactly is "full of"? Very scientific statements. Note that early galaxies have much less heavy elements, compared to modern galaxies. About 10 times less. The trend was pretty well predicted before JWST.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.02890
https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.08516
https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.08255

>>16712421
>But a static eternalist model of the universe is incompatible with current political interests.
Not to mention, all the empirical data. Learn the history of the field before you speak.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_state

>>16712251
this anon gets it. with our current shitty caveman-tier technology, "cosmologists" are nothing but fanfiction writers who have bamboozled almost everyone that what they're doing is science.
theologians spend all their time arguing about the internal logic of their magical fantasy worldbuilding, too, but at least they don't claim to be empirically describing the universe.

>>16712018 (OP)
>NICE HUBBLE CONSTANT FAGGOTS
its over...

>>16712421
A Priest, a Rabbi, and a Mullah walk into observatory and burn all the witches and their demonic books.

>>16712625
Two points determine a unique line.
And an awful lot of smooth curves.

>>16712035
'paying off'
I remember the last time when I used the correct value for 1 − LG to design a product people saw real value in.

>>16712327
>real physicists
>Just look at what fields have the most clowns in social media. That's right. Quantum goys and Astrotards.
I assume the real physicists in your mind don't actually work in physics and are busy at home developping alternatives to QM?

>>16712327
>condensed matter materialists
Materialism is a philosophy, it's not science.

>>16712751
>Materialism is a philosophy
Incorrect. It is a point of view.

>>16712045
What exactly is the use of your post processed pretty pictures of light dots and dust?

>>16712018 (OP)
>>16712031
It's over.

>>16713075
agree. it's never been more over for astronotards

>>16712625
yes, theoretical physics is just sci-fi until you can actually prove it. having a nice equation doesn't prove it.

>>16712848
The only correct one, to be exact.
Whenever you feel good, remember, it's not you, just your physical body.

>>16712405
>sol
it’s called sun, you pretentious asshole

>>16712045
it is for trumpanzees

>>16713279
You can't separate theoretical and experimental physics, they need each other. Theorists torture themselves with maths and outlandish mumbo jumbo to the brink of insanity, then they chuck the grenade over the wall to the experimental side and go "here's a bunch of nonsensical equations and crazy asspulled ideas, have fun building a $20 billion machine that's extremely convoluted and fragile to prove I'm not completely insane". You can't have experiments without theories that lead to testable predictions.

its quite possible that there are "mini-bangs" in a steady state universe.
in which case, we basically just did the heliocentrism thing again: assume that the thing we see (sun/observable universe/big bang) is the only one of its kind
this would explain why there are mature galaxies when it shouldn't have been possible before the big bang; there was already shit out there.
this is actually bad news for us, because our current universe is extremely young relative to what should be its total age. but if there are 'bangs' every so often from quantum fluctuations, we might have a lot less time in the observable universe than we think, before what is essentially norse ragnarok on a cosmic scale

>>16713500
>it's not you, just your physical body
What is the distinction for a materialist?

>>16713503
sol literally means sun in scandinavia

>>16713647
the problem arises when you can't actually do the experiment. hence, sci-fi. if your theory turns out to be true, that's great, but only until then.

>>16714453
A materialist would know that his brain isn't the rest of his body.

>>16712018 (OP)
>>16712031
why wasn't this hypothesis considered to begin with? why so many decades of big bang and dark energy stagnation?

>>16712251
if they lue about physics, imagine history, ... cavemen are faker than sin aren't they?

>>16712248
Scientism is a religion.

>>16713503
sol and luna you chud

>>16714562
Because the hypothesis is obviously wrong.

>>16714408
>its quite possible that there are "mini-bangs" in a steady state universe.
Good luck reconciling that with the isotry of the CMB.
> mature galaxies when it shouldn't have been possible before the big bang
There are no confirmed mature galaxies in the early universe, none that violate standard cosmology.

>>16714408
>its quite possible that there are "mini-bangs" in a steady state universe.
Good luck reconciling that with the isotropy of the CMB.
> mature galaxies when it shouldn't have been possible before the big bang
There are no confirmed mature galaxies in the early universe, none that violate standard cosmology

>>16714661
>Good luck reconciling that with the isotropy of the CMB.
It's simply wrong, and I won't reconcile shit, faggot. Christniggers coped about earth being flat for thousands of years, then they conceded that no, it fucking isn't, and what do they do? Say same shit about creation of the fucking universe, as if things magically pop out from nothing.

>>16714674
>>Good luck reconciling that with the isotropy of the CMB.
>It's simply wrong
Based on what observational data?

>>16714661
>the isotropy of the CMB
silly anon, the CMB is not isotropic
there is a temp dipole, a polarization dipole and they don't coincide

>>16714872
It is highly isotropic. Many models were rejected based on this.
>there is a temp dipole, a polarization dipole and they don't coincide
Please post the paper.

>>16714877
baryonic matter and radiation distribution is anisotropic at all scales
https://academic.oup.com/mnrasl/article/532/1/L1/7670623?login=false
seethe, cope, dilate

When Hubble was first put into orbit, the three letter booys had roughly a dozen of them in orbit for 10 years prior, possibly more.
Just think how many more powerful webs they have out in the magic spots.

>>16714885
That is not about a polarisation dipole.

Also it directly refutes what you said earlier:
>there is a temp dipole, a polarization dipole and they don't coincide
They do coincide, they have the same direction. But it's the amplitude is higher. But note that other measurements show the recovered dipole amplitude depends on the radio frequency used, showing that they are not simply tracing large scale structure. There is some systematic error in the measurements.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.08366

>>16714904
Zero. They have zero JWST sized telescopes. They no need for them beyond medium earth orbit. The Hubble sized KH-11's have already reached the atmospheric limit. There is no point building better ones. The mirror for Roman was part of the hugely expensive failed FIA program, it was still Hubble sized.

>>16714905
>LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU SYSTEMATIC ERROR HAHAHAHA LALALALA
sad

>>16714909
militarization of space says you're wrong

>>16714911
So explain to me if there is no systematic error why different measurements find different values?

>>16714923
>explain to me why measurements don't agree with my predictions from my pet theory
you are the blackest gorilla nigger

>>16714929
You misunderstand. I'm asking why the different measurements disagree with each other. Nothing to do with theory.

>>16714941
if you postulate a common cause error, you have to explain why it doesn't affect all measurements in the same proportion
if you claim they are all wrong in different ways, you must then explain why they all fall on the same side of zero
good luck, gorilla nigger

>>16714905
Remember that time when astrologists(lol) said that there is voodoo number the same everywhere and baked it in to all of their equations and it turned out they were wrong and supposedly the best academically training physishits - at least those not quite smart enough to break away into real science - failed to realize that they made up some bullshit?
/sqt/ - If you are one of these people, what are you going to do for the next thirty years when your whole field is demonstrated to be a sociological phenomenon?
My money is on some higgs-string copium. An elaborate con perpetuated until you to can retire on tenure.

>>16714949
>if you postulate a common cause error, you have to explain why it doesn't affect all measurements in the same proportion
I asked you why they disagree if there is no error, and instead of replying with a rational argument you just asked me the same question? I'm not the one claiming these studies are robust.

>>16714952
>that there is voodoo number the same everywhere and baked it in to all of their equations
Lel. What the fuck are you even trying to say?

>>16714661
>Good luck reconciling that with the isotropy of the CMB.
read the abstract in the second post. the CMB is being called into question. it's built on a jenga tower of assumptions.>>16714661
>There are no confirmed mature galaxies in the early universe, none that violate standard cosmology
they just found several. that's what the thread is about. if you want to cope about it not being "confirmed" yet, fine, this is fucking 4chan

>>16714941
>>16714962
>>16714969
get ready to hear a lot of astrotards squealing like this as JWST gapes their asshole wider and wider over the coming years

>>16713568
This is /sci/. I didn't come here to read shitposts from trannies mad that they can't get the government to pay for dick hacking surgery any more . Now fuck off over to /pol/ for your political bitchfest.

>>16714564
Not if you actually science right. Yes, there are people with a cargo cult mentality, but when you know the science method and follow it, you see the limitations of science and demystify it.

>>16715076
>read the abstract in the second post. the CMB is being called into question.
Read the thread. No it's not:
>>16712926
>>16712577
The paper is pure speculation. They offer zero explanation for features of the CMB.

>they just found several
Post the paper then.

>>16715112
its all so tiresome

>>16715083
richly deserved, imo
they've been holding back physics with their sci-fi

>>16714962
you need to put error bars around any measurement. however if you do many independent measurements and they all cluster... there's something there

>>16715250
>you need to put error bars around any measurement.
Which they did, and still the measurements disagree by many sigma.
> however if you do many independent measurements and they all cluster... there's something there
And what if instead they don't cluster and show a clear dependence on a property of the observations?

>>16715263
>they don't cluster
they all show anisotropy lol
>show a clear dependence on a property of the observations
which property would that be

>>16715270
>they all show anisotropy lol
You expect anisotropy due to the peculiarity velocity. So the fact that there is anisotropy is not surprising.
What is inconsistent is the amplitudes. Why don't the amplitudes agree in different observations?
>which property would that be
the radio frequency used

>>16715286
>peculiarity velocity
excuse me?
are you arguing that there is a universal reference frame?
because it sounds like you're arguing there's a universal reference frame
>Why don't the amplitudes agree in different observations?
why indeed
could it be that the universe is anisotropic and so there is more of some wavelengths of light than others?

>>16715298
Peculiar velocity. The velocity of the Milky Way with respect to the CMB rest frame.
>are you arguing that there is a universal reference frame?
No. The CMB rest frame isn't universal. Different observers see different CMBs.
>could it be that the universe is anisotropic and so there is more of some wavelengths of light than others?
The data is not counting light but radio galaxies. Which are supposed to trace large scale structure out to huge scales. The frequency should not matter, as it's assumed that these galaxies are far enough away.

>>16715304
> the CMB rest frame
so you ARE arguing that the universe has a rest frame
lol
lmao even
>The frequency should not matter
according to your pet theories, that is
well, looks like it's time for new theories, sunshine

>>16715307
>so you ARE arguing that the universe has a rest frame
Read the next sentence.
>according to your pet theories, that is
And I'm asking how that could be the case under your assumption that these are pointing to large scale anisotropy.

>>16715312
>Read the next sentence
I have. You are postulating a universal rest frame to explain the CMB anisotropy as an artifact of proper movement with regard to it. The body of Einstein is turning in his grave at radial velocities quickly approaching c
>your assumption
it's not my assumption, it's their data

>>16715317
>I have.
So then respond to what I said with an argument. Don't just say "yes you are".
>it's not my assumption, it's their data
Explain the frequency dependence.

>>16715324
I just did. GR forbids the existence of a universal rest frame.
>Explain the frequency dependence.
I'm not a theorist. I am just telling you that the data does not agree with your pet theories and you are refusing to listen.

>>16713500
>the only correct one
Why are you endeavoring to be stupid? This shouldn't require effort on your part.

>>16712653
Science is about exploration and sometimes that exploration leads to a mercantile gain, if mercantile gain is your purpose you should go to corporate RnD.
>>16713044
The stuff you see with your eyes is not very important, but the information hidden in the spectrum and all other ways light leaves traces of what actually happened are important if you want to figure it out, maybe it forces us to think up new physics and learn more about reality. If not we just learned a bit more about the universe and maybe the next discovery with lead to a new breakthrough.

>>16715328
I have explained how the CMB rest frame is local. You have decided not to debate this.
> I am just telling you that the data does not agree with your pet theories and you are refusing to listen.
it also disagrees with the hypothesis that these data are a robust tracer of large scale anisotropy. So the implications are unclear, people are investigating.

>>16715346
>I have explained how the CMB rest frame is local.
no you haven't
>it also disagrees with the hypothesis that these data are a robust tracer of large scale anisotropy.
no it doesn't
>the implications are unclear
lambda CDM us dead
sorry you spent so much time "learning" bullshit
(not sorry, if you were not a midwit you would have seen that lambda CDM is made of pure copium)

>>16715304
>No. The CMB rest frame isn't universal. Different observers see different CMBs.
get a load of this faggot, roflmao

>>16715404
cdm cultists will never admit they were wrong. they'll just come up with more magical invisible negroparticles that do whatever they need them to do for their beautiful formula to still work

>>16712018 (OP)
Will he finally kill himself now?

>Big Bang
FAKE
>Evolution
FAKE
>Space
FAKE
>the Earth being (((round)))
FAKE AND GAY

GOD IS REAL
SCIENCE IS A TOOL OF THE DEVIL
THE AMISH ARE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING
SMASH AND BURN ALL THE MACHINES
BUTLERIAN JIHAD NOW!!!!

>>16715466
By the way, I'm aware of the irony of using a computer in order to decry them. So don't bother pointing that out.

>>16712018 (OP)
>>16712031
>>16712043
>>16713044


The creator you believe in didn't thought to make humans inhabit other planets or Earth-like celestial planets.

We didn't accomplished infinite energy nor infinite resources, and never will.

>>16714909
Plasmonic and metamaterial lense systems to get below the diffraction limit are the future of glownigger imaging technology.

>>16715346
Ernst Mach would be pleased.

>>16712405
Solar system? Completed it m8

>>16713503
>the planet is US

>>16712251
Anon, I'm more /x/ inclined, but I think it's okay to take increasing stabs at figuring out reality. I'm in agreement that making hypothetical variables up and moving forward with those as the basis for models for decades and decades is an ego thing and the old men doing that need to take a step back from the driver wheel.

>>16713500
If I've never been a giraffe, how can I envision being a giraffe? My body has never been a giraffe.

>>16713647
This. Stop building hypothetical variables upon variables, but taking a stab at it is the only way forward.