A new paper titled “Detailed study of a rare hyper luminous rotating disk in an Einstein ring 10 billion years ago” has come to my attention.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-024-02296-7
This paper is a good example of how the more pages of theory based on assumptions only, increasingly byzantine maths and a good load of devious data crunching the paper has, the more fantastical and pseudoscientific its conclusions will probably be.
As usual the BBT theory consistently fails to explain why predictions of (the lack of) star and galaxy formation in the early universe don’t match the observations. A serious problem now for BBT theorists with the new JWST data. However the fantastical BBT can still be saved by pretending even more imaginary dark matter exists in the early universe than previously predicted. (As Narayanan et al postulated in 2015) These sort of very mature old galaxies have been recently observed in hi redshift surveys and cause a serious existential problem for the BBT. They shouldn’t exist! There’s not enough time for them to form after the beginining of time in the BBT fantasy universe. One get out for supporters of this failed theory has been that there were multiple fast occuring mergers of early galaxies. However the authors of this paper admit...no such evidence of any mergers is observed in this particular hi redshift mature galaxy studied in this paper.
But the authors of this 2024 paper now cite Narayanan and pretend even larger than expected, or allowed, imaginary dark matter existed in the early universe and fortunately can be invoked to save the continually failing BBT. Thank heavens for brilliant mathematicians. They can turn a sows ear into a silk purse. And it is this pseudoscientific sleight of hand of that is used to save their cherished BBT. The rule seems to be: If the observation contradicts your preferred theory, then make up imaginary observations of imaginary new never before observed particles and your theory will be saved. For a few weeks at least until JWST comes up with new data that contradicts your theory once again.
When will supporters of the BBT theory admit that their favourite theory has never yet made a successful prediction. Starting with Gamows 1940’s prediction of a ridiculous 50k temp for the CMBR. (when a CMBR of 2.8K was measured in the 60’s, suddenly everyone forgot how wrong Gamow, LeMaitre or Apher and Herman’s predictions actually were) And JWST in particular has been a trying time for Big Bang fantasists. Every week some new JWST early universe data contradicts the Big Bang theory. Yet rather than admit the BBT is a quasi religious fantasy devised by a catholic priest desperate to reconcile his faith with a science that wouldn’t conform to his religion (LeMaitre) the theorists can always rely on Dark Matter. The phlogiston of the 21st C.
