New in cosmology

Seems the JWST is throwing up a lot of surprises. Some even go as far as to say that the surprises refute the Big Bang Theory, while others observe that modifying the details of the theory may be more appropriate in order not to lose the huge successes of the theory in explaining major observational facts.

Whatever the truth is, there are a lot of impressive new observations and new hypotheses to explain them.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. My reasons for disagreeing with the big bang is that I was aware of how and why that theory was concocted. At the time, it was believed to be parsimonious of necessary, supporting hypotheses. It's always been the case that new bits have been added in order to support problems that arise due to observations. In my opinion it wasn't going to be true because it wasn't constructed from the right motives. What they should have been looking for was different and would consist of a single, composite idea. Not a theory of everything but an elegant idea which was capable of supporting all facets of observational analysis. I also had an idea that any reasonable theory would look "nearly true" because universal topography would always "nearly support" any reasonable hypothesis based on observation and measurement. I have never thought the BBT is unreasonable. Like God, it seems reasonable but incorrect. More reasonable, I would suggest, than determinism. The persistence of God belief, once it's been invented, can be explained by so much, other than the existence of God, that the actual existence of God is just not going to be true.

I have always thought that the BBT is only true locally rather than universally and that it isn't really true at all because universal origination is not going to be hot and highly condensed but cold and in a near complete vacuum with nothing happening, very slowly. I had an idea of huge standing waves in empty space at virtually zero Absolute. I mentioned it to Edmund when he was a PhD student and he was taken aback because apparently the exact same had been recently postulated at a high academic level. He asked me if I'd read it anywhere but it follows another principle I use, which is that if anything can be thought, it will be liable to happen if ever conditions exist which support it. But the "thought" has to be based on **potentially** scientifically understandable ideas. My idea was that unusual, energetic transitions would occur at nodes.

I won't read it now because I'm very tired but thankyou very much for it.

I was born out of a black hole - which spite out the earth  

This explains all the chaos around and increasing entropy

RIP Big Bang Theory

So the second law of thermodynamics is your fault...

We were all young and did our mistakes 😇

There is no space telescope 1 million miles away from earth

LouisLunchbox. Has always adored Uranus

LouisLunchbox. is surprised that you.consider him not to be grown up.Here he is.btw he relishes MARS bars.KWIM   

https://odysee.com/@EricDubay:c/The-Mystery-of-Gravitation 9-minutes

Gravity is still a cosmological theory................at best! 

Astronomical Violations of Perception

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAr7yWnTBDY 

Objectively it is not. It is a theory of physics. One that has worked very well - something apparently beyond the ability of flat Earthers to understand.

Actually it is very simple and observable until theoretical physics comes along to screw everything up 

Says someone who has been stumped by trying to calculate the path of a projectile (as correctly achieved by average early teen students of physics).

I know this will be something your ego will need to hide from, but incompetence is not superior to competence (eg being able to do this sort of thing).

So how does a Military Rail Gun function on a spherical earth?

It shoots a projectile over 100 miles (not a missile).

According to the globe formula 100 miles equals 1.26 miles of curvature. 

One can write out a theoretical physics/mathematical formula that covers an entire chalkboard that proves absolutely nothing in reality. 

Of course, that is what heliocentric theory is all about. 

Never ending theories

These are interesting questions that would be enlightening to you to understand properly, but the place to start is understanding how to predict the path of heavy projectiles on a small scale (so gravity is uniform and the curvature of the Earth is irrelevant).

To be frank, I am a bit puzzled why you are asking the first one, since the answer is intuitively easy - since the projectile is fired at (way) less than orbital velocity (5 miles per second in old money, take a look at the ISS) it will inevitably fall to Earth. A straightforward calculation implementing Newtonian gravity allows someone to calculate where it hits the ground on the curved Earth (best done with a program because of the slow change of the direction of the gravitational force as the projectile travels a long distance).

Only unusually foolish people think the military rely on the Earth being flat.

Please note that you still need to learn how to predict the path of a cannonball on a small scale to reach the level of practical competence of an intelligent middle schooler. I understand that this will provoke some sort of ego-defensive protection mechanism.

So how does the scope view the target 100 miles away i.e. through the earth of 1.26 miles of curvature? We are not talking about missiles but a bullet from a gun. 

Explain why globe apologists claim snipers must account/calculate/adjust for the assumed coriolis effect(which is just a fancy way of saying the rotation of the earth) and airplanes/pilots do not have to calculate for any alleged rotation? 

Why do ALL aeronautical manuals/instruction(even NASA official documents) plainly state that all aeronautical calculations/navigations MUST be based on a nonrotating, stationary flat earth? 

All b/s. All long distance ballistics takes curvature into account, and long range ballistics is of course, done without direct sighting. Do you think Russia can see targets in the US for their ICBMs?

ICBMs (the B is for BALLISTIC), have paths that are mainly unpowered and well above the atmosphere, thus taking a suborbital trajectory due solely to gravity.

Here is an example of the calculated path of an ICBM. Most of the flight is ballistic in space and, because the speed is insufficient to reach orbit, it falls back to Earth near the location calculated by the sender (course adjustments are made late in the flight due to the slight uncertainty in the calculated path.

Note the military are not stupid enough to do this calculation assuming the Earth is supported by a pile of turtles. Both the Russians and the Americans have enormous experience of orbital flight around the Earth.

How many times must I distinguish a missile from a bullet?

They are NOT one in the same. 

A military rail gun shoots a bullet/projectile(100 miles). It does not launch a missile/rocket. Like the V1/V2 rockets the Germans launched during WWII thanks to NASA/NAZI rocket scientist Werner Von Braun.