Webb and Hubble telescopes affirm Universe’s expansion rate, puzzle persists

We've known for a long time that different branches of science give different values for the rate of expansion of the universe. That's a clear sign that something is wrong with our theories. Another problem for me is the invention of things like dark matter and dark energy to plug gaps in the theory. Whatever happened to Occam's razor?

Experiments are done to verify theories, not the other way around (inventing theories to justify the results).
Theoretical physicists bullsh... succesfully so far because of the limit of our instruments until ... JWST.

"the problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements." - Nothing "happened" to Occam's razor, we just haven't found an explanation with fewer elements than dark matter & energy yet.

Cosmic distances are calculated by more than one means. The effort to measure the distance to celestial objects began in Ancient Greece employing the Parallax Method which began by using the Earth's orbit, 6 months apart, as the base of a triangle used to construct an isosceles triangle and calculating the included angles, resulting in the perpendicular distance calculation. The first of course was our Moon. This works well out to a few parsecs. For greater distances there are several methods most depending on some "Standard Candle".

One such "candle" is the Type 1a SuperNova. Type 1a supernovae that are relatively close to us appear to have the same brightness relative to distance so they are very useful at nearby bodies but just how standard they are throughout the galaxy is sort of an educated assumption since we don't know if Mass is or was the sole contributor always to brightness. We try to compare several accepted "candles" to arrive at some level of average accuracy. These methods will improve over time as new technology develops and already have improved accuracy many fold over 19th and 20th Century measurements. It currently is still a bit like constructing the Pyramids with bits of string and a wheel.

The reason I mention distance is that those data limitations plus the limitations on our complete understanding of Gravity lead to differences creating substantial conflicts in such things as rate of expansion and the rotation speed of galaxies which led to the theories of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Dark Matter was first hypothesized by Lord Kelvin in the late 19th Century.

By ~1930 a number of astronomers began to publish data on observations that simply could not be so with the then current understanding. This all took a leap into theory beginning with Fritz Zwicky in 1933 and furthered by numerous astronomers data throughout the early 20th Century and reached quite a tipping point with a few astronomers mid Century, perhaps most notably Vera Rubin in the late 60s and 70s.

I've left out a great deal (obviously) but the point is that these theories are each named "Dark" for a reason. Something is causing the ever mounting number of observed phenomena much as before molecules of gas were understood, few knew what "wind" is, only that it obviously exists. Similar progress occurred with simple Fire. Occam's Razor is in full effect. It's just that we are in the very primitive stages of figuring out precisely what is responsible. For example, one competing theory was (and I suppose still is among a few) MOND, which essentially proposes that gravity is variable. It, however, fails to explain numerous qualities that Dark Matter and Dark Energy handle with some aplomb.

With so many major advances taking place once we started building high altitude balloons and especially rockets and incredible telescopes, it's easy to forget that many textbooks as late as mid to late 1950s still taught the entirety of the Universe consisted of but one galaxy, ours.

"For the first time since November, NASA’s Voyager 1 spacecraft is returning usable data about the health and status of its onboard engineering systems. The next step is to enable the spacecraft to begin returning science data again." https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasas-...dates-to-earth

Einstein and The Buddha.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTbz6wuDKyc

Funny this .....

I haven't looked here in a while. When I posted this thread (Post #1), everyone took turns to flame me for doing so. But it now turns out you're actually having the sort of good-natured discussion I intended, as there are consequences (and casualties) because the JWST works .

I'm pleased that this thread has somewhat turned into a fact-based discussion, but there are still quite a few posts revealing the authors don't understand how the Scientific Method works or what actually motivates scientists.

JWST was designed on purpose NOT to confirm what we already theorize (that would actually be next to useless for scientists) but precisely to find flaws. THAT'S the revelation of future paths that garner grant money not to mention describes the cutting edge of what will refine those theories and later become the new standards... for a time.

In short, scientists are not at all upset that some initial data seems to fly in the face of some aspects and details of current theory. Most are overjoyed! After all that's why it was made.

I'm interested to hear people are looking for new theories. But I'm disappointed to see that what obviously doesn't hold water any longer isn't being called out as such. Anyone who wants to write 'the big bang as currently understood no longer seems valid' appears to be stifled by peer review.

We can assign dates today to important discoveries. 1543 was when Copernicus' work was published proving the it's Ptolemaic predecessor. But it wasn't safe for Galileo to say that in the next century, as he found out! 1864 was when Pasteur disproved the Spontaneous generation of life. In effect he proved that life only came from pre-existing life. But that was also very slow to find acceptance. I think Scientists in general share Galbraith's view Have you noted any expectant joy as current theories are undermined? Have you any links?

New theories are mostly reserved for the cutting edge, phenomena still in the hypothesis stage like Dark Matter and Dark Energy. We know something is there but "dark" should be a potent clue that we have very little to go on to identify what that is. Big Bang, defined as a hotter, denser previous state of our expanding Universe, has so much testing and consistent, verifiable evidence, including actual photos of the Cosmic Microwave Background, it should come as no surprise claims against it are discarded as pseudoscience. Refinement? Surely possible but "no longer valid" is extraordinarily unlikely. I mean arguments that unicorns exist or have existed somewhere at some time cannot be written off as Absolutely Impossible, but the odds are so infinitesimally minute it's unwise to make such a claim, almost as unwise as claiming the broad strokes of Big Bang is invalid, so of course such ridiculous claims are stifled. Why waste time and energy on Unicorns?

Firstly, proofs only exist in the abstract such as with Mathematics. Disproof is far easier. In Science it is called "falsification" which is the state of affairs when a theory cannot explain observed phenomena, when predictions don't "pan out". Pasteur disproved Spontaneous Generation but that does not imply that life can only come from pre-existing life, let alone prove it. "Acceptance" begs a qualifier of "among what group(s)?" and has little if any value. The value is all in the body of evidence for probability.

The distance, for example, from London to Paris begs the qualification of from what exact points measurements are taken, under what conditions and on what scale. Once specified, there can be no argument since it is objectively true no matter who makes the measurement under those same specified conditions, since under those conditions the size and shape of Planet Earth varies little. The distance from Earth to Moon changes as we are moving apart so a factor of Time must be added to the specifications.


There are of course many papers in Nature and arXiv but there are numerous and serious as well as joyful and accurate scientific documentation even on YouTube but one does have to wade past a sea of flotsam clickbait. Anton Petrov, Dr. Becky Smethurst, The Royal Institute, and even the more "watered down" Neil DeGrasse Tyson's channels are decent sources, even though Dr. Tyson is a bit of a "showboater". There is a UK fellow that often appears on the NPR Science channel that is very solid but may get a bit technical for some.

BTW, "undermined" is overstating the case to the point of being false ot at least leading to false impressions. Science doesn't work like that since it is all about percentages of probability. It is extremely unlikely that the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun can be "undermined" but it could be slightly refined. The nature of Dark Energy is expected to undergo deep "undermining" since we have so little data to work with circa 2024. We see and catalog it's effects but we have no idea yet what it is. These are not problematic in any way, shape, or form. Answers by nature follow Questions.

@enorbet: But also let us always soberly remind ourselves of: "through a glass, darkly." We construct our theories and hypotheses based upon (what we think is ...) "our best available information." But, there is always "the next Nobel Prize-winning discovery" yet to be made. We will never actually know what the elephant really looks like – because we can't.

I'm a bit confused here, has there been some new evidence recently uncovered such that the big bang was previously valid, but no longer is?