eddmaxwell

[eddmaxwell]

The Big Bang (star formation) fails the observable evidence, Genesis Creation does not!

During theoretical star formation the star first enters main phase as it would emit visible light very quickly entering nuclear fusion. One problem that phase has never been observed. Theoretically at least 3 new stars in our MilkyWay should appear every year. Stars have been observed to disappear in star fields (yet unexplained) but never spontaneously appear.

"one problem that nags Astrophysicists the most would be the fact stars have never emerged from the darkness of space where no star was observed before"

The the Bible clearly says that stars were Created on day 4 and by day 6 God had finished His Work of Creation of the universe and called it good.

So when you see these pictures taken by telescope with the title "star nurseries" be aware that is only hopeful thinking...

[eddmaxwell]

The Big Bang fails the observable evidence, Genesis Creation does not!

Hubble tension lives on, there is still no solid evidence for a concise value of the Hubble constant. Some data sets in certain surveys drive that constant within the error bars only to be dismissed by other more objective studies placing it well outside the bars.

"This issue has become increasingly serious, leading some experts to describe it as a crisis in cosmology." Phys.org

Since the universe as described in Genesis is in stasis the Christian need not worry about science conflicting with our faith...

[eddmaxwell]

The Big Bang fails the observable evidence, Genesis Creation does not!

Best start out with the New discovery from the JWST (James West Space Telescope), the object is called galaxy MoM-z14 and it is supposedly just 280Myrs after the Big Bang, well within the last theorized epoch of re-ionization and it exceeds all expectations for its observed brightness.

Also quote: "one of the things they discovered was that there seems to be an overabundance of nitrogen, and there's not a single theoretical model that predicted this much nitrogen this early on."

To conclude, so far, there is no sign of the theoretical evolution of the universe as predicted by the Big Bang (it has failed). Behind this discovery there are still more distant galaxies, proving that the predicted age of the universe by the theory of Big Bang is nonsense.

[eddmaxwell]

Followup: Big Bang fails the observable evidence, Genesis Creation does not!

In essence Genesis Creation is from a "White Hole" not a Big Bang... Waters above can replace Dark matter and present a new interpretation in special Relativity.

Big Bang theory needs dark energy and dark matter (both of which have no theoretical nessesity outside supporting that failed BB theory). On the other hand the Genesis creation needs no such crutch to support it.

The Waters above are quite accurate, mass's  of water in the far reaches of the universe have been discovered by astronomers where there should be no water at all. Dr. Russell Humphreys PhD physics, presents a Biblical cosmology "formulated in the framework of general relativity" via gravitational potential (a parallel to the Klein metric of 5d space time) as a better cosmological theory replacing Big Bang theory and fixing problems like "dark energy, dark matter".

[eddmaxwell]

The Big Bang fails the observable evidence, Genesis Creation does not!

Best start out with the New discovery from the JWST (James West Space Telescope), the object is called galaxy MoM-z14 and it is supposedly just 280Myrs after the Big Bang, well within the last theorized epoch of re-ionization and it exceeds all expectations for its observed brightness.

Also quote: "one of the things they discovered was that there seems to be an overabundance of nitrogen, and there's not a single theoretical model that predicted this much nitrogen this early on."

To conclude, so far, there is no sign of the theoretical evolution of the universe as predicted by the Big Bang (it has failed). Behind this discovery there are still more distant galaxies, proving that the predicted age of the universe by the theory of Big Bang is nonsense.

[eddmaxwell]

Note to "physblr" LBGTQ is not off topic for physics?... BUT dark energy is?

I did not ask for their community posts in my time line, followed the rules and was very polite, seems any real statements that concern real physics is stamped off-topic. Happy rainbow day to your community.

Good by and good riddance...

[eddmaxwell]

So far it looks like the Universe did not evolve from a Big Bang

At the furthest reaches of imagery the Universe (by JWST) is Homogeneous and aging. There is no evidence of hydrogen gas giants or early interstellar material as was predicted in an evolving Universe.

The supposed solution to the dilemma is the hypothetical existence of dark energy, but dark energy has no theoretical basis in physics and is only an ad hoc hypothesis to support of the Big Bang!

Quote: "The recent discovery of the ultraluminous quasar SDSS J010013.02+280225.8 at redshift 6.3 has exacerbated the time compression problem implied by the appearance of supermassive black holes only approximately 900 Myr after the big bang, and only approximately 500 Myr beyond the formation of Pop II and III stars."

[eddmaxwell]

Green House theory is anti-science...

The Back-radiation effect of Carbon Dioxide has never been demonstrated in any experiment. Back-radiation can be summarized as the radiation transferring heat from the earth back to the earth, a violation of Entropy.

.04% of the Atmosphere can not alter the climate of the earth. "

"It is an interesting point that the thermal conductivity of CO2 is only one half of that of nitrogen or oxygen. In a 100 percent CO2 atmosphere a conventional light bulb shines brighter than in a nitrogen-oxygen atmosphere due to the lowered thermal conductivity of its environment"

It is inescapable, Greenhouse effect defies physics...

[eddmaxwell]

Wow... Purple stars!

But wolves can't see colors, maybe that one can.

[eddmaxwell]

IPCC modeling of CO2 fails to produce a working consistent model for our climate

The greenhouse gas theory is flawed a better explanation is a new model...

The Nikolov-Zeller (NZ) model. That model is based on pressure-induced Thermal enhancement (PTE) of Solar heat energy regulated by the natural pull of gravity, an analogous "GHE" effect.

Quote:

"In our model development we employed a ‘top-down’ empirical approach based on Dimensional Analysis (DA) of observed data from our Solar System."

[eddmaxwell]

God sustains the earth... Man can not change the climate!

Climate modeling based on the CO2 metric is unreliable and predicts nothing... "Such uncritical application of climate models has led to the commonly held but erroneous impression that modeling has proven or substantiated" https://t.co/2jQIZ5LCVe

Job 38:33-37 “Do you know the ordinances of the heavens, Or fix their rule over the earth? “Can you lift up your voice to the clouds, So that an abundance of water will cover you? “Can you send forth lightnings that they may go And say to you, ‘Here we are’?

[eddmaxwell]

Some will walk into hell with their eyes wide open, maybe this one should open their eyes...

[eddmaxwell]

The Atheist complains there is no proof of God, but when confronted with said proof runs and hides from it.

Waiting for a genuine conversation with the sceptic, seems there are none left...

[eddmaxwell]

Dueling dates for a huge eruption reignite the debate over dinosaurs’ death

What rally caused the mass extinction of the dinosaurs? A impact from space or volcanism?

"A set of new studies further shifts the blame away from the impact and toward volcanism, a position that geologist Gerta Keller of Princeton University has taken in recent years."

As a Creationist the answer to that question is easy, when Adam and Eve were banished from t he Garden of Eden that ecosystem collapsed causing the extinction of many dinosaur species.

[eddmaxwell]

The 19th century saw an explosion of scientific discovery — people like Pasteur, Darwin, Curie, Mendel, and Kelvin expanded the frontiers of human knowledge. But not every scientific advance was actually an advance.

Take phrenology, the “science” of measuring the bumps and ridges on people’s skulls. It was seen as a key to understanding yourself and others. It was very trendy; Queen Victoria had her kids’ skulls read by a phrenologist.

Even after it was debunked, phrenology stuck around in zombie form. Various charlatans marketed courses and devices that promised to unlock the truth about people that was encoded into the shape of their skulls.

This week, a look at the strange history of this pseudoscience and its impact on people’s lives:

[eddmaxwell]

Got anything that does not have false colors added...

Pretty stuff but can do without the color enhancements.

[eddmaxwell]

Bitter clingers to bad science

Create a hypothesis, put it out to the scientific community by publishing or by teaching at a school or university. What is the problem with that if the scientific evidence supports your hypothesis? But when the hypothesis or theory becomes "ad hoc" playing whack a mole with outrages contrivances...

"In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from being falsified"

Examples you ask? Try Big Bang Theory, Evolution and climate change just for three!