Into the Impossible With Brian Keating - Claim: The Big Bang NEVER Happened? (#252)

Episode Date: August 24, 2022

By popular demand, I'll present 10 reasons why I believe Eric Lerner's article, based on his 30 year old book of nearly the same name, "The Big Bang Never Happened" is wrong, as well as some legitimate claims he raises. Join me for some live questions and maybe some answers. Along the way, I'll provide insight into how I review such claims and how you can too even if you're not a professional cosmologist to judge for yourself Resources: https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215 UCLA Professor Ned Wright: Errors in the "The Big Bang Never Happened": https://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html Watch my deep dive into the physics of the Big Bang nucleosynthesis: https://youtu.be/XLT05w79c64 T There's been lots of speculation in the popular press claiming the Big Bang never happened. Supposedly, new data from the James Webb Space Telescope presents a crisis for an old universe that emerged from a hot dense plasma, in favor of a much more ancient cosmology -- a plasma cosmology. Yet the underpinnings of the Big Bang are more solid than ever, thanks in large part to the fossil evidence astrophysicists have found of primordial nucleosynthesis, also called BBN. Join me for a deep-dive into the physics of the formation of the elements, perhaps the most indisputable evidence for the hot Big Bang there is. Connect with me: 🏄‍♂️ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DrBrianKeating 📸 Instagram: https://instagram.com/DrBrianKeating  🔔 Subscribe https://www.youtube.com/DrBrianKeating?sub_confirmation=1 📝 Join my mailing list; just click here http://briankeating.com/list ✍️ Detailed Blog posts here: https://briankeating.com/blog.php 🎙️ Listen on audio-only platforms: https://briankeating.com/podcast   Join Shortform through my link Shortform.com/impossible and you’ll receive 5 days of unlimited access and an additional 20% discounted annual subscription! Subscribe to the Jordan Harbinger Show for amazing content from Apple’s best podcast of 2018! Can you do me a favor? Please leave a rating and review of my Podcast:  🎧 On Apple devices, click here, scroll down to the ratings and leave a 5 star rating and review The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast. 🎙️On Spotify it’s here   🎧 On Audible it’s here Other ways to rate here: https://briankeating.com/podcast  Support the podcast on Patreon or become a Member on YouTube Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Open the bud bay doors, please help. I am quite, quite interested to review this recent article that I saw published last week. It's not really a publication. It's really a comment, maybe a Jeremiah. I don't know how else to describe it. So I want to take this opportunity to go through this popular article called The Big Bang Didn't happen. And I want to address some of the concerns that I've heard about it from professional colleagues,

some outright just dismissing it, calling it utter nonsense, not worthy of contention. But I think it's entirely as instructive to do. just outright dismiss it and say it's completely wrong, even though I'm going to outline 10 reasons why I do think it's wrong. And I want to do that more as a way to describe how to look at scientific popularization and when media claims are made, how do you know if it's clickbait if you're not a professional scientist? There's a famous saying, it might be Carl Sagan, who said, you know, It takes 10 times as much emphasis to refute, I think he said nonsense or BS. We'll keep it clean in case any of my kids come through the room.

But it takes 10 times as much energy, let's say, to refute acclaim than to make a claim. And yet the acclaim for such a wavy topic as saying the big bang didn't happen, really the onus is on the claimant, not on the proponents of the current paradigm. It doesn't mean the paradigm is entirely correct. I'm going to outline some of the things in the article that I think, you know, they're worthy of, you know, further investigation, perhaps. But I want to take this opportunity as, again, my role in this channel and my podcast is to teach you to think as scientifically as possible.

if you're a scientist or non-scientist, if you're a graduate student, I kind of think of this as kind of like office hours and wanting to portray it in a way that anybody can understand and hopefully get insight into the nature of which of these claims are worthy of your attention. I was alerted to this by someone very, very well-known in the media, but not entirely liked by everyone on this channel who asked me if this is real or should I take this article, the Big Bang didn't happen or never happened, should I take that seriously?

So I want to first call up the paper, or the article rather. And this is in IAI News, which is the Institute for Art and Ideas. There's a link in the video description below. The claim by Eric Lerner, who is a well-known person, even though I didn't really know much about him, he is the president and chief scientist of LPP Fusion. and he is the author of a very similar titled book to this article called The Big Bang Never Happened. Now, that was one of my first kind of, I would say warning signs, but sort of maybe a red flag that came in.

And that was, you know, whether or not we can really say there's any, there's complete lack of interest in, you know, in a personal sense from this particular individual. So, you know, I'm not going to speculate on why or why not he would write this to, you know, is it to sell a book? Is it to, is it to, you know, get attention for something? But you always have to ask, are there non-scientific motivations at work? So we'll take a look through the article and we'll ask ourselves, you know, about the underlying claims and if they have merit. Okay, so let's look at this article.

Again, this isn't IAI. I just did a recent event for them where I described the, I described the, well, I was a host and moderator between Carlo Revelli, Eric Weinstein and Sabina Hosenfelder, with a discussion of the reality of quantum mechanics. So I'm affiliated with the Institute for Arts and Ideas and they've invited me to speak. They actually invited me to speak in September where Eric is going to be at their festival of arts and ideas or how the lights gets in, I couldn't make it. Oh yeah, see there it is. Eric Lerner will be speaker at our upcoming festival, How the Light gets in London 2020. I was invited. I can't make it teaching and so forth. So I'll miss out on that. But one of my friends, Priya Narotigen, Professor Yale, she is apparently going to be debating him. So if you're in England, if you're in the UK, make sure to check it out. So the IAI is a well-known, you know, is a well-known project, I suppose, to to bring science and artistic ideas to the general public. And so I like them, I support.

I don't know. I don't work for them. I don't get anything from them except, you know, the intellectual satisfaction of debating with friends like Carlo and Sabina and Eric. Anyway, okay, so everyone who sees the James Webb Telescope, a space telescope image of the cosmos are beautifully awe-inspired. Okay, that's true. And that's not at all predicted by theory.

Okay, so there's the first thing. So what they're showing is that these images in Cosmelo, they're extremely surprising. They're not at all expected. Lots of surprises and not necessarily pleasant ones. One paper's title begins with the title, Panic. Okay, candid explanation. So let's see what is that, what is he talking about there? So, I mean, panic, that must be in the Big Bangs totally farcical, right?

So let's let's investigate. Let's click on this link and see what does it bring up? panic at the discs first rest frame optical observations of galaxy structure at Z greater than 3 with JWST and the smacks in the field this is actually written by the third author

is a former guest on the podcast Christopher Constleys, professor in the UK obviously this is not saying panic that the Big Bang theory is wrong as this guy starts off Eric starts off his article as if to bring some doubt in dispute and cosmologists are in a state

of panic. No, they're not in the state of panic. This is a joke, a tongue-in-cheek article. And I would be surprised if this actually gets published with the title Panic. It's obviously a reference, a callback to the well-known popular music band, The Panic at the Disco. So they're just being cute. I think it's kind of funny. And I don't think there's anything wrong with starting a paper like this. Now, what's surprising is that Christopher Consolese is the editor of App Jay, one of the editors of AppJ, and he may actually have a, you know, say, an override in this paper's title actually getting public. Okay, so let's just take it for granted that this paper is not about saying that people should panic. They're talking about the surprising result that a greater than

1.5, disk galaxies dominate over the overall fraction of morphologies, with a factor of 10 higher normative deaths than seen by the Hubble Space Telescope at these red ships. Now, why would that be a crisis. Why should that be a problem? Well, according to Eric, the Big Bang didn't happen, so the universe is much, much older. And in the Big Bang model, the universe is only 13.7 billion years old. Therefore, it shouldn't have enough time to spin up these galaxies into the configurations that they're known as spinning galaxies or disk galaxies. Now, that could be because the previous telescope Hubble was not designed to even have the

capability to see galaxies at these high redship. So actually, I think that there's a lot of, you know, there's a lot of, I don't know, honesty or integrity, but the point is that the Hubble Space Telescope was not capable of seeing galaxies at these high red shifts. So it's not so surprising that when you have a new tool like this, you're going to see things that your other telescope wouldn't have seen. Imagine if, you know, Hubble using the Mount Wilson 100-inch telescope in Los Angeles, had said, well, you know, you see so many galaxies. and they're so far away from us. And then when the Palomar Observatory in San Diego County was opened up 200 inches, it has four times the collecting area.

You can see things four times fainter or even more. And it's, oh, well, it's inconsistent with what Hubble saw in Mount Wilson. Well, of course it is because it has more capability. So it's going to have a more finer tooth comb to filter out things that Hubble couldn't see. There's another issue in that he doesn't address, but any proper scientists should address this, is that the calibration of the James Webb Telescope is actually a work in progress.

It's not that we have ultimate confidence in the calibration of it. And now we talk about they're blatantly contradicting the hypothesis of the Big Bank. So that's the first thing. So he's trying to sow doubt in the reader's mind. And of course this gets spun up in the press. Oh, man, astronomers in chaos, in a panic.

everything that we thought is wrong. Of course it's going to get headlines, and he knows this, and it's a little disappointing that so much is being made in the popular press. And you know this when your grandmother or your grandfather starts asking you about these things. Oh, the Big Bang didn't happen. Have you ever rearranged your furniture and discovered the carpet underneath looks brand new, while the rest of it looks, well, not so new? It's time for a carpet upgrade.

At the Home Depot, we have Stylish Choice. at simple prices from all the top brands. Best of all, we can install it for you, starting at only 49 cents per square foot. So all you have to do is pick your perfect floor. Start your carpet project today at the Home Depot. How doers get more done. Exclusions apply for licenses,

see Home Depot.com slash license numbers. So now these galaxies, what he shows, are James W.O.S.C. galaxies show the same size galaxies near to us. Now, there's nothing quantitative about that. And actually, it's known that in an expanding universe, there will be a minimum size of galaxies, so galaxies can be no smaller than a certain size. And that's called the angular diameter distance.

I have a video about that someday coming out. But the bottom line is that we don't have any reason to suspect that galaxies should be smaller or bigger than a given size, which is a constant size, about an arc minute or something. And he's saying that it's not at all consistent with what's expected of this. Now, red ships up to five, et cetera. And there was a lot made in the very first couple of days where these data are picked from. And that was saying that galaxies were made at redshifts of 10 and 20, much, much higher redshift.

Some of those have been retracted. And there is a normal rush to get data out and to get an analyzed. It would be the first to make a claim about the existence of galaxies at extremely high redshift, which equates to extremely young ages. And of course, what Eric Lerner, is Dr. Lerner is trying to do here is to criticize the Big Bang for not having enough capacity or enough age to both create galaxies, have galaxy formation, and also have galaxies to start spinning up and have galactic rotation. So, you know, those are legitimate criticisms. And yet we have to first make sure that the calibration between redshift and distance is calibrated. And of course, in his model, what he's doing is doing something that I actually have a connection to,

and that is via one of my colleagues, two of my colleagues, at UCSD. So what he starts with was tiny and smooth galaxies mean no expansion and thus no big bank. So he's claiming his model, which is a form of plasma cosmology, we'll get into that in just a second, that plasma cosmology accounts for how the universe is actually structured in a plasma model such as his, there is no expansion, and therefore there's no Big Bang. The Big Bang is the inevitable consequence of a universe that's expanding, and that if you trace the clock backwards, you get a universe that's much smaller and denser, hotter than in its current phase. So he's trying to cast down on it. This is what he's trying to do. And that's all fine. But he has an agenda,

obviously he has an agenda that he wants to promulgate his cosmological model, and there's a danger that you'll account anything as evidence for your theory and everything is evidence against another theory. So he's got on about this merger process and how this has actually not been successful. I should also point out some of the features of his cosmology, which have not changed. So this is point number three, I think, of my 10.

So the first one is that the state the Big Bang never happened and then claim things anything like panic in the title is really evidence that cosmology is in crisis because of the title of a paper. I think that's kind of specious to be honest. It's kind of tongue and cheek. Maybe he's not super serious

about it. Who knows? Number two, calibration has not been applied. Number three, he's got an agenda, a model. So his colleagues and he are trying to postulate that you don't need to have a Big Bang to have the structures that we've seen in the universe since these data have come out. Now, what's interesting is that his model, his model came out in 1991,

and that was before even the Kobe satellite data had been released showing that there were fluctuations in what he calls the alleged or supposed cosmic microarray background. Let me see if I can find what he calls it. Isymmetries in the microbe background that should not exist. Let's see here. That drive cosmic evolution, microarray background, phenomena that we observe. Okay, so we're going to get into this topic in just a bit. It can be explained using laboratory.

Okay, in other works, he's dismissed the cosmic microwave background, completely saying it is not based on, it's not, to be counted as evidence for the hot, dense, early phase of the Big Bang. So he says something could have existed before the Big Bang. I mean, nobody's claiming that existed in the Big Bang model, although there are models, as we talked about a month ago with Anahegis, the bouncing cosmology, there are structures and structure formation, isoccurvature fluctuations, things like that that can take place

in so-called bouncing or cyclic models. He's dismissing those completely. He doesn't believe in a cyclic model. Okay. So just as there's the Big Bang, if the Big Bang hypothesis were valid, theor should expect that JWST looked farther on space and back in time. There should be fewer and fewer galaxies, and eventually none, a dark age in the cosmos. Well, okay, so there is a dark age in the cosmos, and it's before the earliest galaxies that are shown in the JWST data.

So there are blank spots in the cosmic web. In fact, what he dismisses completely as the result of what's called a cosmic screen. We'll talk about that in just a bit. That cosmic microwave background is a dart. There are no galaxies when the CMB is produced, the 380,000 or 370,000 years after the Big Bank. He can't explain that. So there are actual blank spots in the cosmic structure formation history.

Now he's saying, while Big Bank Ther's were shocked and panicked by these. So again, he's equating like all these theorists. By the way, the papers that were published with that title, or I was submitted, it's not published. And I think it's very, you have to be very careful if you're a good scientist. I'm saying this to my students and to people that want to know how to assess both publicly disseminate information and actual scientific data. You have to be very careful with what you quote and what you accuse people of believing.

And you have to be extremely careful of how you account and what you're considering people to be. So first of all, the paper that's published in panic, those are not theorists. They are not theorists. they are observers. So not getting, not understanding who you're talking to and what the data and what they're representing. It's as egregious as, you know, going into an Apple store and getting, asking for a Samsung phone. It demonstrates a lack of professional courtesy, let me just say.

And we'll see later that Eric, Dr. Lerner, he is no stranger to making accusations against the scientific community, which is another one of my warning signs, the 10 warning signs. So they're saying they're shocked and panicked. Nobody has been panicked about these new results. Again, he is creating a false narrative that people are a crisis and that luckily we have his model, which by the way, has been around since many of you, before many of you were born that are watching. Certainly any of my students that are watching. 1991.

So it's a 31-year-old paper, a book that he has been continually harping on. And that book was written before the discovery, seven years before the discovery of dark energy, a year before the Kobe results were announced. And yet, as new data have come in, there's been absolutely no new progress in this model. It's just the same model that's been recycled since the time of a man by the name of Alphane. And so we'll talk about that. Let's go down here. So what he talks about here is cosmology in crisis. You see all these different references, et cetera.

until the past three years, if a research could self-fund cosmology research as a silent, as in the case with me, they could still publish heretical papers. So this brings me to a fifth or six point that I always like to make a point. You should never accuse scientists of being a cabal of acting and that there's censorship going on. I joke with my students. Never compare yourself to Einstein and never compare yourself to Giordano Bruno, who of course was burned at the stake for his truly heretical ideas. At the heretical to the Catholic Church in the year 1600, he was burned at the stake. Now, why shouldn't you do that?

Well, I think a lot of times you try to conflate your ideas with the ideas of people that were persecuted. I often get arguments like this mailed to me. Professor Keating, I have this new idea for a cosmological model. Everybody's wrong. I know you might think I'm crazy. They thought Einstein was crazy. But look what happened with him.

So if you help me, the implication goes, then I will help you and we'll split the Nobel Prize. And so the conflation is always between someone great or someone who is persecuted for heretical ideas. It's very loaded terminology. It's not proper scientific terminology. And it's hard to take it seriously. I wouldn't take him super seriously at this point other than the fact that he has every right to make legitimate claims and concerns against the Big Bang. But he's clearly advocating a position, a position that he has held unwaveringly since 1991, despite all the new evidence that's come out for the cosmological model, despite dozens or half a dozen Nobel Prizes that have gone to what's called the standard model of cosmology, namely that the universe has been expanding for over 13.7 billion years, and it's predicated on three pillars that need to be explained in his model or any other alternative. And I did a wonderful episode with my friend, Garrett Lewis, and Luke Barnes, about two years ago now, called the Cosmic Revolutionaries Handbook.

And such a treatment says that if you have a revolutionary new idea, here's the list of things you have to overcome. In other words, you have to explain everything that's explained currently and more. You have to make new predictions. Otherwise, you're just adding on epicycles. So the question is, does his model explain more than the so-called standard model? The standard model of cosmology features a big bang, features dark matter and dark energy. Do we know what those are? Nope, we don't know what those are.

We didn't know what 90% of the period of table was until the last 80 years. So I don't think that's a true criticism. It doesn't mean that we'll never know it. Now, if we never have any insight and we just get stuck in a route and just keep looking for the same exact thing, yeah, you could criticize it. He doesn't believe in dark matter. He doesn't believe that the universe is expanding, let alone that the expansion is accelerating. for which we have copious evidence. He doesn't believe this cosmic micro-rayed background is cosmic.

He doesn't believe in the red shift of galaxies. And he doesn't believe that most of the lightest elements in the periodic table were formed during a hot, dense phase of the universe, because there was no hot, dense phase of the universe. So he has to form those in very exotic scenarios. And he's been doing this, as I said, for so long now, almost over three decades, that some people have actually criticized it,

and we can look at the errors in this. This is a wonderful website that you should always look at, run by my friend and professor colleague at UCLA, and his name is Ned Wright. And Ned Wright has a whole web page dedicated to this. And it's called Errors in the Big Bang never happened. And so he first goes through the criticisms of the Big Bang, errors and alternatives to the Big Bang

and then miscellaneous errors. So back then, I think this, I forget when this paper came, this website rather came out. Let's see, let me scan down to the, so this hasn't been modified since 2003, and a lot has happened since 2003, including the Nobel Prize

for the Discovery of Dark Energy by past guest Brian Schmidt and Adam Reese. You should look for episodes by them on this channel. So even back this time, there was enough to dispute in this work, this proposal by a learner. So now we're criticizing the critique, the alternative model. It's one thing to criticize a model.

It's another thing to come up with another model that doesn't do as good a job as the model you're disputing. So, and oftentimes one of the signs that you're dealing with somebody whose motives may not be aligned with what you are looking for, which is the ultimate scientific truth, is that they not only prove. somebody else wrong, but they also want to prove themselves right. And it's very difficult to do either one of those, let alone both of those. So he goes through, and even back then he was talking about how hard it was to make clusters of galaxies at large times. So he's still saying that in this IAI paper, right? So he's saying, to give an example, 150 million light-year sheet of galaxies, this is in his book. So he's talking about superclusters. And how

How could super clusters form? This is in 2003, Ned Wright is dismissing the 1991 book by learner of almost the same thing. Structures take too long to grow, learning value of 1,000 kilometers a second and 75 million light years, H-not, which is the expansion rate of the universe today, we find perfect agreement. As long as Omega, which is the energy density of the universe, is close to 1. Now, in 2003, when Ned Wright was writing this, we had already measured that Omega was close to 1. But in 1991, we hadn't. We didn't know if the universe was open or closed,

if it had greater than or negative less than the critical density, which is what omega equals one means. And we didn't know the Hubble constant to better than 10% or 20% uncertainty. Now we know it to 2% or 3% uncertainty. And as you'll see, that's a critical ingredient. And so he hasn't updated his same argument. In other words, he's recycling the same argument that there's not enough time to grow. even though in the time that he's written in the book, 30 years later,

we've refined the values of the input parameters of the Big Bang model that he's claiming are wrong. Now, he also talks about the spectral behavior of the Big Bang, as measured by the Kobe satellite and others as well. And because of that, he has critique about not only the existence of the cosmic microwave background, but of its fluctuations as well. He actually references his model, which is a form of plasma cosmology, that was first popularized by a professor at UC San Diego, where I am.

His name was Alvane. He won the Nobel Prize, and that's often used as a way to bolster the, that he wanted for plasma physics, and he claimed that plasma pervaded the cosmos, and that there was no big bang. Now, why did Alphane want to show there was no big bang? Alphane wanted to show there was no big bang because he believed that that was used as evidence by creationists to support the biblical narrative of the Genesis event.

So that wasn't a purely motivated theory by Alphane. He had ideas and complaint, and that was 50 years ago. And so now we have Eric Lerner, Dr. Eric Lerner, recycling this model. Although, according to Ned Wright, Ned Wright says that he abandoned the plows. cosmology in the response that he had to to what Ned Wright had put out. So in other words, Lerner said in a response to Ned Wright, he said, I disavow this model.

He says, Ned Ryan, I'm just reading, I'm going to switch back to the website. Remarkably, Lerner now disowns the Alvin Klein model, which plays such a big part in his book, and wants me to give the proper attribution. He points out that he lists now, but now in the IAI paper, he's citing the Alphain paper. Okay, so he's talking about Nobel Prize winner, Alphane. So which is it? Do you disown it? Do you not disown it?

Disavow it, rather. And so I find this very, very, I don't want to say misleading, but it's certainly kind of playing a distraction. Okay, so there it is. The scientific question matter here and now. Over decades, scientists starting with physics Nobel laureate, Hans Alvane, have shown that the Big Bang hypothesis has thrown out the evolution of the cosmos that we observe. today like the CMB Committee explaining and physical processes observed in the laboratory. Well, wouldn't that be great? Except that if the universe is not expanding, he cannot explain how the CMB exists at high red shifts. We observe the CMB.

This is the most damning evidence, I think, about, and it didn't exist maybe as highly accurately as it does now, and the time that Ned Wright wrote his dismissal and disproof of the learner model. But instead, he did not know and he does not cite the fact that if you measure the cosmic temperature of the microrate background, it changes as a function of redshift.

And we measured that in different galaxies. How can you possibly explain that in a universe that's not expanding? You said this place was steps from the water. We just haven't found the steps yet. How much did we save? Enough. Enough to get lost. Or you could book a stay with Hilton.

Welcome to your ocean front room. just steps from the water. The Hilton sale is on now. Book on Hilton.com or the Hilton app and save up to 20% to get the stay you expected. When you want savings, not surprises. It matters where you stay. Hilton, for the stay.

He has no answer for that. In fact, he's dismissive of the CMB. He believes it's due to like some scattering effects, which have been disproven for decades. And again, I am not, you know, averse to tackling and to engaging with people who have alternative ideas. Don't forget.

I probably the only person who's ever interviewed Giant Narla Kar, who was Hoyle's best graduate student, probably, arguably. Fred Hoyle was the biggest proponent and opponent of the Big Bang. He gave the name Big Bang to the Big Bang model as an insult to the Big Bang because he thought it was so preposterous. And allegedly it's a British euphemism for orgasm or something. And so he wanted to humiliate people that believed an explosive, because Hoyle also was against the creation Genesis 1-1 narrative. and Hoyle and Nalakar worked very closely together, and they work together with Jeffrey Burbage and Margaret Burbage, and I sit in Jeffrey Burbage's office at UC San Diego.

So I've interviewed Jeffrey many times before he passed away 12 years ago. We chatted many times about cosmology. He went to his grave believing the Big Bang never happened and so-called quasi-steady state cosmology, which has been utterly disproven as I talk about in my book, losing the Nobel Prize, my first book. but I interview a giant laurel car. I love talking to him

and I think you can learn a lot from people even if you disagree with them violently about their particular ideas but why are they doing this? What is this about? Why are they trying to do this? And that's my goal. I want to teach you to look at these things. So the last thing I want to talk about besides, so I talked about, you know, how does he explain

the C&B? He doesn't. There's another thing that he can't explain. Any universe that has no expansion and everything is moving gravitationally, Why do we see some galaxies getting blue shifted? Why are they getting gravitationally attracted to us? How does he explain general relativity, where if you have any mass density, the universe cannot be static. It cannot be unevolving. He doesn't have a good explanation.

So he has to come up with all these epicycles in his model. And it's not the first time this has ever happened. It's the first time because of the rise of Twitter and the Internet that I'll get emails and messages from all over the world asking about this. How does he explain that? How does he explain the evolution of the redshift dependence of the CMB in a universe that's unexpended? How does he explain the changing Hubble constant due to the presumed evolution of the universe during expansion? How does he explain that there existence of dark energy, which we measure not only from supernovae, but we measure it from the CMB alone. And that is left unexplained.

The last thing I want to conclude with is something you always need to do and you need to look and again, consider the source. What is their motivation? Why are they writing this? Okay, so the process of plasma filamentation, now we're getting to the good stuff. This is probably the last thing. To use fusion energy, the power that drives the universe and gives light to the sun.

This is great. And the stars, we need to develop and drive that cosmic evolution. Just as the Wright brothers develop the airplane by studying how birds control their flight. I don't know that that's exactly how they did it. I think Leonardo da Vinci looked at birds controlling their flight. So today we can only control ultram plasma where fusion reactions occur by setting how plasmas behave at all scales in the cosmos. We need to imitate nature, not try to fight it.

We at LPP fusion have been applying that knowledge concretely. So now he starts getting into funding of these processes. The scale of the sun, the work on larger scales, has been hobbled by the straight jacket of the Big Bang hypothesis, which has diverted hundreds or thousands of talented research into futile calculations of a imaginary entities like dark matter, dark energy, that have invented to prop up a failing theory. So cosmology can emerge in this crisis crisis, it recognizes that the big bang never happened. So if you click on this link, now you come to where he's published his papers. And when he talks about he's published these papers and so forth, they only appear on his website.

They're not published in journal. Now he's saying there's censorship. Now, to censor an article is an incredibly difficult thing. You have to have multiple referees that would agree and collaborate and collude to, and I like the website, by the way. Eric, if you're watching, congratulations on this website. It's really cool animation. Take it from me. I don't know anything about your fusion processes, but I dislike the kind of conflation again of the universe and the incorrectness of the Big Bang theory with now we need more funding for the type of fusion research than I'm dealing.

I think that smacks of a conflict of interest personally. And while it might be noble and there might be, in other words, you might be able to say, well, people are not funding my cosmic researches and they're not funding my fusion research, therefore, you know, I'm being censored and ostracized at the highest levels. To get ostracized from journal articles, almost impossible, he's talking about not being allowed to publish. I think that those are kind of very bold statements. he has published before

in some journal articles, as he mentioned. I don't think that there's much point. Now, I look through the articles. There's 60 pages long, and that brings me in the final point, again, quoting from Carl Sagan, I think, or I don't know how it was from. But it takes 10 times

as much energy to refute I don't want to say any bad words, okay, guys. fill in the blank here to refute BS that it does to produce I'm not calling him BS I think he's probably very knowledgeable about this is what I find often that people are like so down the rabbit hole they haven't really collaborated they haven't been involved in university settings they're trying to come out of left field using this argument that you know work for Einstein or work for me and so I wanted to just you know alert you when you see articles like this go through the links take them seriously take Eric take People like him seriously. He will be debating, you know, one of the foremost cosmologists in the world, Priy and Narajun at How the Light Gets In Festival. I hope that'll be great.

I hope they'll get a good turnout. And I hope maybe she can, you know, even substantiate more with what I am talking about from her expertise in black holes and formation of those objects and how they anchor and behave in type of galaxies. He also, as some people are mentioning Gregory Head and others are mentioning things like, he also dismisses the abundance of light elements and because of that that would be a reason to dismiss this well I don't think that's exactly true at all

in fact I have a video as I said on Sunday you can find a link to it on the channel already for the premiere so watch that video that's about how do we know the abundances of all the lightest elements on the periodic table not just the helium and deuterium that he's talking about so how do we know that the universe originating from a hot, dense state, one of the biggest, most precise ways we have of doing that is measuring the abundance of light elements.

And I'm going to be presenting, as I did in my cosmology for undergraduates, advanced undergraduates class. It's an advanced lecture. Although you don't, you know, I put in a lot of entertaining jokes and my editor is really fun. And so I think you'll like it even if you're not an expert. But I go through the equations and the calculations of how we know the abundance of and calculate the abundance that can only take place if the universe was once as, hot as the hottest plasma fusion reactors that Eric Lerner or his colleagues could ever consider. And that's tens of millions of degrees Kelvin. And that does not exist in the plasma cosmology universe. And in fact, he has to come up with other ways to form it, which the article by

Ned Wright, which I'll put a link to in the show notes and let me get some time. Disputes as well. He talks about another way to produce lithium and other light elements that I talk about in the video on Sunday, so make sure you do click and decide. So I see a lot of questions in the chat. I don't have too much time. Let's see. Could the James Webb, Simon here, I'll add that. Could the James Webb Space Telescope prove that there was no Big Bang?

No, the James Webb Space Telescope is not designed really to do proof of the Big Bang. That's what I'm studying. I'm studying the micro-rate background, which is the oldest light in the universe. These are the oldest galaxies in the universe, and it's a much higher redshift that Hubble could ever see. So what do they mean for the age of the universe after we start out the age of the contrary? It doesn't change the age of the universe at all. The age of the universe is primarily determined by its composition and the Hubble constant, and we know those exquisitely well.

There is tension between two different values. They can differ by at most 9 or 10%, which could differ, change the age of the universe by a billion years, but it doesn't change it by infinite number of years. and so yeah Michael I don't know I could interview him I have a lot of other things on my plate right and I think this is pretty good he's debating Priya and I think that hopefully they'll make that available for people to see as well and that's next month or if you're in England go there and check it out Brad S you're welcome that's great paper rid of trolls yeah I don't know I mean I don't consider him a troll I think he

he's earnest. I think he's, you know, he's trying to do the right thing. I don't think he's doing anything, you know, scientifically untoward. I just think he has, you know, perhaps confirmation bias where he's trying to, um, uh, where he's trying to, um, you know, really motivate his model and take down the predominant one. Now, it's true that we don't know what dark energy, Rob and dark matter is that doesn't mean we don't know, you know, we, we, we didn't know what quarks were until the 1980s and 90s, really. Uh, it doesn't mean that they didn't exist or weren't real in some sense. So what if he's wrong, but we need to reevaluate.

We do have to re-evaluate the universe's age. That is true. We have to constantly evaluate it. And the thing is, is that if I thought, you know, like a quasi-steady state model was right, then there'd be an infinite age effectively of the universe. And we are investigating that with things like looking to disprove, or really, that's what we do as scientists. We don't look to prove models.

We look to disprove that. Remember, you know, try to share the channel so I can grow to that magical number, 69,420 subscribers. We'll do a, we'll do a, a Q&A. Maybe we'll do it live and you guys can ask me all sorts of crazy questions and fun questions. I'd love to answer them. Bye everybody. Had a fun and I'll talk to you guys soon. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. All pay off your home, travel for life, drive a Ferrari. In celebration of the world premiere of the Monopoly, big board buck slot machine by aristocrat gaming, Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package.

The biggest prize in Yamava's history. Club Serrano members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29th. Don't pass go and own it all. Only at Yamava, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win? Details at yamava.com must be 21 to enter. Please gamble responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro.

Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion.