You Don't "Not Believe" it, You Don't UNDERSTAND

Added: 2026-05-26

[00:00:00]Anyways, so uh Vander Von Doom, what about the JWST stuff? Um, uh, all that stuff's interesting, but it really doesn't threaten the big bang really in any way. Um, the JWST really, there's really nothing about it technologically that really even could overturn the Big Bang. So, as far as early galaxies, um, it it found it broke the record of oldest or earliest ever seen galaxy by something like 10 or 30 million years if I believe so. But it there those galaxies are still many many many many hundreds of millions of years into the history of the universe. So they were the new oldest galaxies ever seen but they weren't like it was just like it if we if we say well the galaxies are older than any previously known ones. It's like okay even if we take that data and then just like add it to the big bang it makes the age of the universe not even 1% older.

[00:01:15]And and the headlines of that story were also super misleading.

[00:01:19]>> Was that the panic at the disco one >> or was that a different one?

[00:01:22]>> Because it was talking about galaxy formation models and how the JWST findings do threaten our current uh galaxy formation models. They could form a lot quicker than we're aware of.

[00:01:33]>> We need more data to know. But yeah, like you said, for the Big Bang, we're still hundreds of millions of years after, you know, the initial expansion began. So it it doesn't question the Big Bang. And then the other the other thing about galaxies that you mentioned is big galaxies the galaxies are bigger than people would expect.

[00:01:51]>> And um so galaxies have what's called a stellar mass index which is like how big on average are the stars in a galaxy. Now, uh we've we've had models for that for a really long time, but every model uh we've ever used used the Milky Way as the uh excuse me, for the stellar mass index. So, we go, okay, based off the average star mass in the Milky Way, this is what we expect to see in galaxies, which was never really all that great of an assumption. I think it was just done out of convenience, I guess. And what they found was there's I don't know what you call it, but there's like this curvature graph um where it shows like the points start together and then they grow apart. And so that that gives you your expected range. And what they found was they plotted from what I've seen it's like a box and whisker plot. So they show the the possible range. I can kind of sort of draw one here for you.

[00:03:00]So before you finish that drawing, can I go ahead and respond?

[00:03:03]>> Sure.

[00:03:05]>> Okay. So, so what's important to understand here is people like Neil Degrassi Tyson and all of these other scientists that kind of are head are heading that front um and following closely with the JWST um they did find uh galaxies that were in places that they shouldn't have been in the early part of the universe and they were 10 times bigger than our known universe and that would have taken by the known model and and creation that we understand how long it takes these galaxies to be created.

[00:03:35]um it would have taken many more millions of years for this galaxy to be as big as it is. This is why we say it challenges the the basic understanding that we have of how galaxies are created um and why it's so detrimental to the big bang theory because it could have been more so and what's widely accepted now is that um our universe was more compacted. It was it was shrunk down to a certain size and then once again was was opened up into what most people believe is a big bang. But we have to rewrite our understanding because of what the JWS JWST has found and the data that it showed uh because it's without question um detrimental to what we understood previously.

[00:04:24]>> Uh okay, I promise I'll address that after I show you some more of this. So like the graph [ __ ] green screen. Uh and it's so blown out that you're not going to even be able to see it.

[00:04:36]So you'll whatever. So that didn't work.

[00:04:38]Anyways, but it show it shows this curve graph and the the expected range has a range of error. And so what they found was the the galaxies that we see, they do fit our model, but like it's at the very very edge of the uh the range of error.

[00:04:58]And they were like that's not we don't really like that. Um it it it seems a little bit like a problem. But then what they did was they realized well in the early universe uh all the matter was more compacted. And so you would actually expect to see um star formation because the matter was more clumped together. You could get star formation and certainly galaxy formation more quickly and you would expect to see bigger stars um because there's more mass clumped on average much much closer together. So when they create a stellar mass index of stars that are, you know, bigger than on average the ones you see in the Milky Way, which is totally reasonable, then those values fall really comfortably within the range. But as far as this like challenging the Big Bang or anything like that, it actually just doesn't do that. It changes the big bang model a little bit by just changing the the amount of time it takes for things to form or whatever. But challenging the big bang model to me would be to say, okay, do we have evidence that we don't live in an expanding universe? No, not at all. Do we have evidence that the universe isn't billion isn't like right around a little under 14 billion years old? No, not at all. Um, that would be I mean those are like the two main things with the big bang.

[00:06:26]There's a few other things, but uh well I guess for now that's really it.

[00:06:35]>> So So then would it be impossible to say that the universe shrunk rather than started from a single singular point and then just expanded again which is the the common theory except now >> that can be true. That doesn't disprove the big bang at all. the big bang.

[00:06:50]>> No, no, no. That's I'm I'm saying that that that's those those both may be on the spectrum of possibility, but when when we have things like galaxies that are in places that they shouldn't be and then they're 10 times bigger, we have to go back and retrace our steps from the beginning and have a whole other understanding of how these things may have formed. And maybe at at one point they didn't start all with from the big bang, meaning that they weren't down to one singular point that things had existed prior. This is why this is why I say the ex the more accepted view would be that it may have just shrunken down to a certain size but did not go to a singular point like the big bang describes.

[00:07:29]>> If you're just if you're just saying that maybe before the universe began expanding there was a a pre-universe that collapsed. So it imploded and then exploded and then it'll do that again and again.

[00:07:43]>> That's Yeah. So, so instead of instead of actually con converging all on one single dot or like a like the tip of a pencil or an eraser, um the universe instead shrunk down to probably like the size of a basketball and and that's just in in relative terms. It could have it could have been very very well millions of light years apart, but had enough shape and form to form stars, um galaxies, things like that. even still inside of this shrunken state and then expanded once again.

[00:08:17]>> Are you suggesting that there was like localized expansion and different >> I'm just saying if humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?

[00:08:26]You can't have an atmosphere next to a vacuum. The Big Bang violates the second law of thermodynamics. Everything that's created requires a creator. Show me curvature. There are no missing links.

[00:08:36]Evolution has never been observed. The Earth is only 6,000 years old.