My Prediction Regarding New Space Telescope That Will See Back to 100 Million Years From the Big Bang

by Sea Breeze 140 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    @SeaBreeze: what they are expecting is formed stars and the first sets of systems. However as has been proven already, the composition of these systems will be completely different.

    Not sure why that would confirm your creation bias as that is what the model predicts.

    What you are suggesting is needed for a creation story is a fully static universe, this has already been disproven, you don’t even need to look back that far. Your theory is actually disproven exactly BY redshift. You need to understand why redshift is happening, then you realize quickly the Universe wasn’t made fully formed, as it is impossible for the heavier elements to exist today if they already existed at the time you suggest they should exist.

    You are approximately 50 years of hard evidence behind the indisputable facts and approximately 120 years behind the first evidence.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    "You need to understand why redshift is happening, then you realize quickly the Universe wasn’t made fully formed"

    So, can you "quickly"explain why you believe that red-shift proves the universe wasn't created?

    "However as has been proven already, the composition of these systems will be completely different."

    Not proven according to this NASA article:

    A team of European researchers, led by Rachana Bhatawdekar of ESA (the European Space Agency), set out to study the first generation of stars in the early universe. Known as Population III stars, these stars were forged from the primordial material that emerged from the big bang. Population III stars must have been made solely out of hydrogen, helium and lithium, the only elements that existed before processes in the cores of these stars could create heavier elements, such as oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and iron.

    Bhatawdekar and her team probed the early universe from about 500 million to 1 billion years after the big bang by studying the cluster MACS J0416 and its parallel field with the Hubble Space Telescope (with supporting data from NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope and the ground-based Very Large Telescope of the European Southern Observatory). "We found no evidence of these first-generation Population III stars in this cosmic time interval," said Bhatawdekar of the new results.

    "These results have profound astrophysical consequences as they show that galaxies must have formed much earlier than we thought," said Bhatawdekar.

    (Or maybe from the beginning)

    The Big Bang theory requires that stars, quasars and galaxies in the early universe be “primitive”, meaning metal-free. Because it requires many generations of supernovae to build up metal content in stars. That takes time.... a lot of it.

    This is one of the main things the WST is designed to look for - stars with no metal content or Population III stars as they are called. These are supposed to be first generation stars made of mostly only helium and hydrogen. About two thirds of the elements on the periodic table were not present after the supposed Big Bang event, but are alleged to have formed after stars burn out, then supernova, then re-assimilate millions of years again later, and so on.

    I predict that Webb will find "ordinary" stars and galaxies just as Hubble did. Stay tuned.

    Even more interesting is the fact that we may now already have evidence that my prediction is true with findings out of Hawaii where ordinary galaxies were found in what the Big Bang expected to be the “dark age” of evolution of the universe due to a somewhat unique gravitational lens effect.

    Wow, imagine that.... ordinary galaxies in the dark age of the "evolution" of the universe.

    Here's a list of just the top 30 problems with the BB Theory

  • waton

    SB, nothing can ruin your reputation like a false prophecy, supporting a theory with yet non existing falsifications.

    science has it, like stated in your post that heavy elements, like potassium, the metals, were forget in the anvil and hammers of extreme shock waves, implosions of later generation stars. a cascading sequence since the pristine Hydrogen after the big beginning.

    Maybe we can prove that near the Big Bang (a term coined as a joke btw) the same condition existed to hammer these heavier element together too?

    if jw*** telescope sees a blue ball, it would prove Gen 1:1 to be truth. The Earth existed at the beginning.

    *** jws, aka wt do have their own telescope. from the greek tele. "end". they always see the end as near. when in reality they are looking into the wrong end of the instrument.

    I remember circa 1948 : "It is later then/than you think" well wt, think again.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    Waton: "nothing can ruin your reputation like a false prophecy, supporting a theory with yet non existing falsifications."

    That made me think of other similarities between the WT and BB scientists on the age of the universe: They both continually find "new light". In the case of the latter, the universe gets older and older when their theory gets in trouble.

    1. Hubble clocked a universe expansion rate of 500 kilometers per second per megaparsec, a constant that now bears his name. Hubble’s work in 1929 pegged the universe at expanding in such a way that it should be roughly 2 billion years old.

    2. This changed to at least 7 billion years old in 1990

    3. An age of 13.8 billion years was trotted out for public consumption in 2003

    4. Recently, astronomers used the cluster Abell 370, which is 6 billion light years away and whose core contains the mass of several hundred galaxies, to magnify light from a galaxy behind the cluster that is 15.5 billion light years distant.

    This last one is the event that I mentioned earlier where the Hawaii telescope (I have been to this one myself) found a galaxy in the "dark age" of the universe where is wasn't supposed to be.

    Just like the WT, when predictions don't work - it's not a falsification of the theory, they say it is clarification, refinement etc. In other words, "the light gets brighter and brighter".

    How old will the universe be once WST finds more things that are not as they "should" be?

    Another safe prediction is that BB scientists will claim that stars formed far earlier than previously thought and the universe is much older that previously assumed.

    Same schtick, different play.

  • Anony Mous
    Anony Mous

    @SB: there is a big difference between science discovering more things to the WTBTS. Basically what you and the WTBTS do is have a fixed conclusion and make the data fit accordingly. What science does is collect fixed data and make the conclusion fit accordingly.

    Hubble for example did collect data and was assuming the furthest things he could see were individual stars, based on that assumption, he calculated an age of the universe of 2Gy that was immediately falsified by the fact earth was already proven to be 3Gy old, so everyone knew something was wrong, they just didn’t know what. Only later on with better telescopes they found Hubble wasn’t looking at stars but at star clusters and that the standard candle and all the calculations they had made were wrong. If Hubble’s original observations were correct, they would’ve actually proven a created Universe as you describe.

    In comparison, the WTBTS continues to hold that Jerusalem fell in 607BCE, despite the fact it didn’t and will continue to warp evidence to fit their calculation (the argument that the Babylonians were wrong, or that the Jews were captured but it was a different Nebuchadnezzar that came back and captured some heathens living in the area).

    You for example, have a fixed assumption that the universe was created static, so any evidence is fitted to that argument. But you can’t or don’t want to explain and leave out evidence that counteracts your argument, such as redshift.

    Redshift basically indicates that light has been stretched out since it was emitted. Very simplistically: light is both a particle and a wave and gets emitted and travels at a specific frequency, there is no mechanism that inherently slows down light. In a static Universe, a Universe that was created in a single unit as it currently shows up, light doesn’t shift, because it just travels along at the same frequency it was emitted. However the spectrum from far away stars has shifted (slowed down) significantly and we can see that happening equally in every direction. The only explanation is that both space and time between the stars and the observer has been stretched out while the particle/wave has been traveling.

    The question is indeed for how long, in the last 100 years we’ve seen several adjustments, but they have confidence ratings, Hubble made a very rough calculation based on what he thought he could see. Had we not improved the observations at that time, the theory would be that the Universe was shrinking, which it can do if we were in a collapsing Universe so you won’t see a doubling of the time anymore, you’ll see minor adjustments in the lower significance digits.

    So if your theory for a statically created Universe is true, you have to have matching evidence: no red shift, or an explanation for red shift (a curved Universe, but that has been disproven as well); an observable creator; no development (birth, growth, death) of stars and galaxies; a visible decrease or observable force that maintains or stabilizes entropy (that would preclude black holes since they are a visible source of entropy) Feel free to provide sources for all those observations, noting that at least one of those violates the laws of thermodynamics.

  • waton

    There is always the possibility that the conditions, during the Big Beginning were locally such, that they were identical to the shock waves in collapsing and rebounding type x supernovae. Then,

    Gold. platinum, titanium would be a few billion years older than we thought. What is a few zeros between friends?

    who's gold is it anyway in thar old hills?

  • hybridous

    Can someone explain why a belief in 'Creation' necessitates a static universe?

    If anything, I would infer that a Universe which, at one point




    implies anything but a static state. If those aren't dynamic conditions, what are?

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    hybridous: I don't think that a literal interpretation of creation in the bible suggests a static universe.

    Job 9: 8 says God "stretches out the heavens". (active present tense) Observations indicate that space (heavens or firmament) is still expanding. It is interesting the it doesn't say that the stars are expanding, but instead the heavens are being stretched out.

    Likewise, scientists believe that it is the space itself that is expanding and causing the redshift. It's pretty easy to explain using an electromagnetic wave as an example. As the EM wave from a distant star travels towards us, the space it propagates through is expanding. Since the space is expanding, the peaks & troughs of the EM waves are getting farther apart from each other. That corresponds to an increase in wavelength, a decrease in frequency; and redshift arises.

    But getting back to spiral galaxies:

    Galaxies are spinning. But the stars in the middle of the galaxies are going faster than the stars at the outside. As a result, we see spiraled arms which are still rotating in the same direction as the galaxy itself.

    If the galaxies were billions of years old, they would have lost their spiral shapes by now. Yet all of the galaxies are spiral shaped...... regardless of age - as a Creation model predicts.

    The similarity of twist in the arms that the closest (youngest) galaxies and the furthest (oldest) galaxies have is quite interesting since the farthest galaxies would have had more time to untwist. Why do the far-away spiraled galaxies have the same twist in arms as the closest ones?

    In other words, there are virtually no differences in the twisted spiraling arms of a galaxy that’s 2 million light years away than ones that are10 billion light years away, which proves that there are not millions or billions of years difference in ages between them or else oldest ones would have less twist.

    Anony Mous: I'm just saying that the rescue devices between naturalistic scientists and the WT are strangely similar.

    When time-based predictions fail : New light means increased generations.

  • St George of England
    St George of England

    Don't forget Rutherford said that rockets would never be able to leave the earth's atmosphere as they would have nothing to push against.

    Nothing the WTB&TS and the goons on the GB have to say on the subject of science is worth considering.


  • DoubtingThomas

    Has anyone seen back a mere century ago?

Share this