The censorship of cosmology | Eric Lerner
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 авг 2024
- Eric Lerner challenges the current cosmological model.
Has science stifled debate on the Big Bang?
Watch the full talk at iai.tv/video/the-censorship-o...
The scientific method is one that preaches openness, humility and falsifiability. But what if cosmology has been held back by the academy for years? Join Big Bang skeptic Eric Lerner to explore the censorship taking place among the stars.
#bigbang #scientificmethod #cosmology
Eric Lerner is an award-winning popular science writer and independent researcher, famous for rejecting the Big Bang theory in favour of a non-standard plasma cosmology.
00:00 Introduction
00:22 Redshift phenomenon
02:22 Tolman test for the angular size of galaxies
03:52 Observations from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and James Webb Space Telescope (JWST)
07:17 Independent measure of the radius of a galaxy
08:37 The impossible galaxies
The Institute of Art and Ideas features videos and articles from cutting edge thinkers discussing the ideas that are shaping the world, from metaphysics to string theory, technology to democracy, aesthetics to genetics. Subscribe today! iai.tv/subscribe?Y...
For debates and talks: iai.tv
For articles: iai.tv/articles
For courses: iai.tv/iai-academy/courses 
Наука
Has science failed us in the question of the big bang? Let us know your thoughts in the comments!
Watch the full talk at iai.tv/video/the-censorship-of-cosmology-eric-lerner?RUclips&+comment
The logic of Eric Lerner’s criticism is rather solid. Any unbiased intelligent scientist would concur his points are strong and that the amount of fixes and epicycles needed to yet hang on to current cosmology orthodoxy are staggering. There are however two points were Eric criticism is not well formulated.
First of all; he makes this into a ‘deal breaker’ of whether the universe is expanding and as a consequence whether the big bang would never have happened. That you cannot do. You can postulate that it is incorrect to attribute the observed redshift to higher speeds of furthest galaxies and thus its spacetime expansion in between. Agree. But that does NOT mean you know the actual status of our cosmos. It might yet be expanding (at a moderate rate) or contracting or being static. You just don’t know from the redshift itself which indeed would hint at distance only. Actually mainstream science should embrace this outcome. Why? Because it would mean we no longer have paradox of the missing 10^60 energy density to worry about for which we invented dark energy. And without dark energy, it would mean King Gravity is back in town again. Which would suggest the oscillating universe is back as most likely variant, and it is not very relevant in which phase we currently are (expanding or contracting) as the beginning and end are the same; a form of big bang.
Which brings us to the second point of criticism of Eric Lerner; he places his own alternative (tired light) as the only red-shift alternative to the speed interpretation of mainstream. That makes his story appear quite biased as well. He should separate the two. Besides there is a more intelligent alternative as to why furthest galaxies would appear more redshifted, which has to with a known QP effect within the fabric of our galactic plane itself. But regardless. Mainstream should make good use of Lerner’s critique and recognise it does NOT mean the big bang never happened. It even makes a stronger case it did as dark energy is not needed.
The big bang is biblical cosmogony (concerns itself with the origin, size and age, all are impossible to ascertain), not cosmology (the working and constituents of the universe; plasma and electric currents, gravity only localized).
@@nobigbang825 Complete nonsense. Learn plasma physics. Gravity dominates at scales much smaller than cosmological ones.
Nope. What has failed science is giving publicity to crackpots like Lerner. And the IAI are complicit in that. He hasn't got a clue. Ask him what the cause of the CMB is. It is comedy gold. Ask him how he explains cosmological redshift. It involves the crackpot 'tired light'. Ask him for his equation for that. It involves photons having to remember how far they have travelled! Galaxy rotation curves? He invokes EM woo to explain how charge neutral stars are on flat rotation curves! Et boring cetera. He is a clueless nonentity. Do better.
Eric looks exactly the way I like my scientists to look, no time for anything other than the problem at hand.
Thank you Mr. Lerner.
He’s saying that for a non-expanding universe, galaxy size is linearly proportional to distance, as the evidence shows.
In the expanding universe theory, the galaxies should be much smaller in size (to the fourth power) and less bright than we actually observe.
He’s correct and his papers have not been accepted because there are too many reputations and too much funding for Big Bang research on the line.
I'm not sure about his calculations. There is a lot of money involved, but there are also many people who aren't happy with the current model. While it can be useful to show that a model is wrong, it is better if you can provide a better model that is more predictive. I'm not going to pay to find out if he does that
@@rbrtbnsn Lerner has provided a model that is more predictive, it’s called the steady state model.
@@rentlastname2824 The steady-state model is not his model. It existed before Hubble. It doesn't accurately predict that galaxies further away (in all directions) will be more away faster than those that are closer.
I'm an astrophysicist by degree and I'd never hear about the "size" idea that he is so focused on.
I believe he down-sampled measurements from literally millions of galaxies to a few hundred ... because they had the best signals.
Stars are point sources due to their extreme distance from the solar system. I've always been surprised that galaxies don't become point sources, no matter how far away we look, but never bothered to check why. I have since looked at the equation that relates size to redshift and it's a LOT more complicated than what he presented.
Even IF the lamda model isn't correct, the steady-state model is definitely wrong. The MOND idea has some appealing points, and I believe it doesn't require dark matter/energy, but it still isn't a steady-state model.
The analogy of being on a balloon and the balloon is being inflated works very well, but the details of how the "balloon" is/was inflated are fuzzy.
@@rbrtbnsn Be sure. Eric is the man.
@@rentlastname2824 Steady state failed long since. That is why nobody bothers with it anymore. It failed. And far smarter people than Lerner, who supported that model, jumped ship even before COBE. It is long dead, which is why nobody bothers with such nonsense anymore.
This would say our interpretation of red shift as due to speed only is wrong. Elevtromagnetic loss of photon energy is possible as measured photon électron interaction ?
@@oliveirlegume3725 Precisely. Intrinsic redshift was one of the cornerstones of Halton Arp’s work on Quasars.
He was able to predict and show Quasars hundreds of millions of LY distant (based on their observed redshift) were physically connected (always at right angles) to parent galaxy’s many millions LY closer. He was even able to consistently image the connecting currents. Unfortunately, what he was proposing didn’t jive with what everyone else “knew”, and he was often blacklisted and prevented from use of most of the best telescopes that were being used to bolster the popular views.
And that right there is THE crisis in cosmology - Observation has done NOTHING among the most influential in the field to change theories and actually provide answers. Science without observation is little more than Scientism, essentially providing a religion of sorts for its followers.
Observation, NOT MATHEMATICAL TRICKERY, should guide the model. Simply concocting more absurd theories (black holes, dark matter, dark energy, etc…) does nothing to point humanity in the right direction. It’s so all-pervasive that I can’t help but wonder if it is done of purpose to keep what IS known buried under the auspices of national defense and such.
Wouldn’t be the first time…
Nice one Eric. 👋
Nobel?
Do they do one for scientific illiteracy?
@@plasmaphysics1017 all the time. Giving him one would change their M.O.
@@cango5679 This guy is utterly clueless. He is physics illiterate. He is only any use for comedy purposes. He has no science. End of story.
I trust your honesty. Thank you.
His hair is certainly expanding
Unlike his brain. Which is even smaller than it was 30 years ago.
Excellent talk Eric, The Big Bang never happened.
It sounds to me like Eric is proposing that galaxies DO NOT grow over time, which is just not true. We can see galaxies merging at every Z. And if they merge, they grow.
Lerner hasn't got a clue what he's talking about.
What he is saying is not supported by current evidence. There is no violation of the Tolman test. His theory uses tired light which has been debunked numerous times.
@@plasmaphysics1017 BECAUSE YOU STUPID
Someone please help me out here. I'm trying to work out the geometry, and it looks like Tolman's test works only if the space within a galaxy expands at the same rate as the space between the galaxies. In the case of dark energy, that assumption isn't true. Could it be that the expansion of the early universe has a similar caveat, or is that covered here somehow? If such a caveat exists, does that bring Tolman's test back in line with the Big Bang?
I think that's one way to resolve it, but it introduces 3 more parameters to the current 6 parameter Lambda-CDM model, so is moving away from Occam's Razor. See the talk at Princeton IAS "Cosmology and Galaxy Formation at the Crossroads" by Michael Boylan-Kolchin
The Tolman test is in line with LCDM. And nobody has ever shown otherwise. Lerner has a nasty habit of being somewhat economical with the truth, as well as trusting his own flawed analysis. He is a nonentity with a BSc. And a business to plug.
so why not full video?
Because iai wants you to be a paid subscriber.
Could ..the impossible galaxies.. be explained by collision of two or more masses close to the BB or even explosion caused by two masses(black holes) colliding at the BB?
How could galaxies be colliding if they are all flying away from each other in an explosion?
Maybe they could. But there's a far simpler explanation.
@@Togidubnus Whats that?
I went to high school with my nerd mates over 50 years ago and this was a constant topic of debate. I was outnumbered because I subscribed to the original idea of non expanding universe. I could of course never explain why night is not as bright as day except to say that the universe is really really big and also dirty.
Neutron decay cosmology
A homeostatic universe maintained by the reciprocal processes of electron capture at event horizons and free neutron decay in deep voids
DM is decayed Neutrons
DE is the expansion caused by that decay from 0.6fm³ neutron to 1m³ of amorphous monatomic hydrogen
The Hubble doppler is a geometric artifact of the curvature of spacetime due to the mass of the universe around the observer.
Consider a sheet of structural color. Drape it over a parabolic hill. The part closest to observer is unaffected but as the distance increases the curvature causes a lowering of the frequency.
Mass increases cubic to visual field square. Where is the extra dimension expressed? In frequency.
Gibberish. Neutrons decay into protons (baryons) and electrons (leptons) and anti-neutrinos. Given that the lensing observations of colliding clusters shows us that the bulk of the mass is non-baryonic, how are you explaining that? Electrons also interact with baryons in a quite observable way. Not seen. Where did you read this nonsense? Not in a peer-reviewed paper, I'm guessing?
@@plasmaphysics1017 no. Just that it's more evenly distributed. A lens is a difference.
@@KaliFissure What? Want to try that in English? What invisible matter is causing the lensing in colliding clusters? Protons and electrons are not going to be invisible. They interact with other 'normal' matter.
@plasmaphysics1017 you're not making sense. You brought up lensing. Lensing had been observed without obvious scintillating matter doing it.
Proton electron soup can't scintillate or absorb photons. But has mass.
@plasmaphysics1017 plasmasphysics101 was taken so you added a random number? Which looks like plasmaphysics 101. Subtle disguise.
We can use another “type” of reasoning that corresponds with Eric Lerner’s explanation. During the evolution of the universe we observe the emerging of more and more large scale structures (galaxies and clusters of galaxies). All these large scale structures are compositions of energy (E = m c^2). So where comes this surplus of concentrated energy from? It originates from the universal electric field. The universal electric field is one of the few basic quantum fields and all the basic quantum fields together tessellate the volume of the universe.
The consequence of the concentration of energy into matter is that the average energy density in vacuum space will decrease during the evolution of the universe. Before the emergence of matter in the universe there was only vacuum space so the average energy density was much higher than at the moment. Therefore the JWST observes giant primordial black holes and very luminous (enfant) galaxies in the early universe.
Light is a propagating frequency (local vibration) of the universal electric and corresponding magnetic field (QFT). The consequence is that light that is emitted in the early universe is slowly red shifted (decrease of frequency) because of the decrease of the average energy density of the universal electric field. That means that the measured red shift of the light of galaxies is directly related to the distance between the observer and the galaxy. But there is some blue and red shift related to the velocity the galaxy and its rotational speed too.
It seems as though galactic spatial dispersion (separation) distances would also decrease over greater and greater distances? Meaning, when galaxies first formed in the early universe, they should also have been much closer in apparent proximity to one another. If the distances calculated between galaxies are similar to those within our current local spatial group, then something should be considered inaccurate with our estimated expansion rates at vast distances?
The big bang from a central point with us directly in the center of the universe, that one never washed. The big bang as a central ****time**** of space has yet to be disproven.
lol what
@@HikarusVibrator If ether makes up the building blocks of space, then as it is slowly compressed or decompressed, it could bring about conditions to make what we know of the universe to happen all at one point in time.
The argument against us being in the center of the universe, that is to see the same distance in all directions, is beyond stupid. Why would we be in the exact center? The odds are so great against that only a fool would believe it.
@@martinsoos if you are sitting on a boat in the pacific ocean and all you can see is water in all directions… does that mean you are at the center of the pacific ocean?
What is ether?
@@HikarusVibrator 2 Good points. Your point about the ocean is also my point. You are stating that the ocean is larger than we can "sea". Cosmology is claiming that if we can't see it then it isn't there.
As for ether, we know that we are traveling through a median and there are two models out there to explain the median that we are traveling through, the compression model and the (for lack a better name), single dot model.
@@martinsoos 1. Cosmology is NOT claiming that! 2. Where on earth did you learn this!? No-one is saying that.
The logic of Eric Lerner’s criticism is rather solid. Any unbiased intelligent scientist would concur his points are strong and that the amount of fixes and epicycles needed to yet hang on to current cosmology orthodoxy are staggering. There are however two points were Eric criticism is not well formulated.
First of all; he makes this into a ‘deal breaker’ of whether the universe is expanding and as a consequence whether the big bang would never have happened. That you cannot do. You can postulate that it is incorrect to attribute the observed redshift to higher speeds of furthest galaxies and thus its spacetime expansion in between. Agree. But that does NOT mean you know the actual status of our cosmos. It might yet be expanding (at a moderate rate) or contracting or being static. You just don’t know from the redshift itself which indeed would hint at distance only. Actually mainstream science should embrace this outcome. Why? Because it would mean we no longer have paradox of the missing 10^60 energy density to worry about for which we invented dark energy. And without dark energy, it would mean King Gravity is back in town again. Which would suggest the oscillating universe is back as most likely variant, and it is not very relevant in which phase we currently are (expanding or contracting) as the beginning and end are the same; a form of big bang.
Which brings us to the second point of criticism of Eric Lerner; he places his own alternative (tired light) as the only red-shift alternative to the speed interpretation of mainstream. That makes his story appear quite biased as well. He should separate the two. Besides there is a more intelligent alternative as to why furthest galaxies would appear more redshifted, which has to with a known QP effect within the fabric of our galactic plane itself. But regardless. Mainstream should make good use of Lerner’s critique and recognise it does NOT mean the big bang never happened. It even makes a stronger case it did as dark energy is not needed.
And the evidence for dark energy is rather robust. And he never deals with it. Because he can't. And invoking crackpot tired light woo just shows us how far out to lunch this amateur is.
You must really like Ptolemy. You like to patch flawed theories up post hoc.
@@Dutch2go Got anything other than the typical crackpot word salad? Rhetorical. Want to deal with the evidence for dark matter and dark energy? Lerner doesn't. Do I need to explain what it is?
@@ianw7898I don’t engage with devout believers in epicycles and such. It’s a waste of time.
@@Dutch2go Translation: You haven't got a clue about physics, and therefore cannot debate the subject. So you are running away. Got it. I get the same thing from flat earthers, electric universe nuts and creationists. Welcome to the club. Coward.
If what he says is all wrong, why don't his critics manage to produce arguments to show where he failed and make him shut up? Shouldn't it be easy to do so?
Because most of his idiocy is not even published where real scientists will see it. He is clueless.
It's been a long time since i took physics but isn't he going to get bad results using Newtons formula? Or since he doesn't believe in expansion he won't use GR?
A lot of what he said doesn't really make as much sense as his demeanor suggests. Red shifted measurement is not the only way the big bang theory is supposed to be true, nor is the measurement of the apparent size of distant galaxies.
you are partly right, but there are already countless of flaws with the big bang theory. The strongest indication of the big bang theory is the comsic microwave backround. We know it exists since we observe it but it is not certain that it is caused by the leftovers of the early universe. It can be expained in more ways. @@thecarrot4412
@@thecarrot4412 Most of what present cosmologists say does not make sense. They have two different methods of determining the size/age of the universe that they deem "correct" and the results of these two methods disagree with each other and get further and further apart as better technology and observations become available. The universe cannot be two different sizes/ages simultaneously, so one or both methods is wrong. They call this "The Crisis in Cosmology." In other words, the stuff you are claiming debunks Dr. Lerner debunks itself.
@@giannisms1861 _"It can be expained in more ways. "_
No it can't. Smarter people than Lerner tried decades ago. They all failed.
@@wesbaumguardner8829 Lol! The Hubble tension debunks Lerner. It is a measure of the accelerated expansion. Lerner's impossible universe is not expanding! He is just a self-publicist with a BSc. Nothing more. A complete nonentity.
Time stretches as the universe expands.
It seems abundantly clear, from the River Model of General Relativity, that there IS an absolute (universal) time, and there IS absolute space. This means there is no so-called Twins Paradox, because there is no "missing time", This is because clocks are NOT time, and they do not measure time. Clocks measure oscillations, and these slow down (due to conservation of momentum) as all particles gain relativistic mass as velocity increases. It even causes biological processes to slow down, and hence there is only an apparent slowing down of time, but in fact it just keeps on flowing at the exact same rate, no matter where you are.
The shift occurring to the wavelength of light measures motion relative to our motion. This is noted with stars in Andromeda. Half the stars produce an overall redshift in their light while the stars on the opposite side produce an overall blueshift in their light. Thus indicating the velocity and trajectory of the stars relative to our motion. Space is not stretching or expanding between us and Andromeda. The motion of the stars relative to us produces this effect. Their redshift indicates they are moving away from us. Their blueshift would indicate they were moving towards us. Space doesn't have to expand if the redshift is simply produced by their motion. The motion of galaxies extremely far away is not even a constant per megaparsec. Thus indicating one single action like dark energy cannot be responsible.
A big bang didn't happen. There is evidence that indicates this, like the absolute motion of our solar system as it orbits the barycenter of our galaxy's mass. Our solar system is receding away from the supermassive black hole at about 900,000 mi/h. So when we take the age and trajectory of our solar system and in a thought experiment reverse time, in 4.5 billion years our solar system would have been birthed by the supermassive black hole, not from a big bang. In fact every star and satellite galaxies is moving rapidly away from the central core, not towards it. Astronomers refer to this as a high velocity dispersion of matter in galaxies.
Real good info. How do you know that the sun is moving away from the center of our galaxy at that speed ?
@@kasperlindvig3215 Because astronomers measured the absolute motion of our solar system by comparing the shift in the wavelength of cosmic microwave background radiation, seeing how it's stationary, all around us.
Gibberish. Learn physics.
@@plasmaphysics1017 Well, if what I wrote is gibberish then you need to learn physics and astrophysics, not me. You're the one who's clearly confused.
@@ronaldkemp3952 _"then you need to learn physics and astrophysics, not me. "_
I did. That is why I am qualified in it. Perhaps you have a peer-reviewed paper I should be reading?
Comparing a nearby galaxy, such as Andromeda, to explain cosmological redshift is idiotic. Andromeda is a spiral. It rotates. Ergo, the stars on the side rotating towards us will be blueshifted. Those on the other side, moving away from us, will be redshifted. There is no blueshift at cosmological scales. It is all redshifted. Because space is expanding. Not only expanding, but doing so at an accelerating rate. As the evidence shows.
_"In fact every star and satellite galaxies is moving rapidly away from the central core, not towards it. "_
Wrong.
plasma
What about it?
Claiming censorship is not how to do science. That's the same strategy used by flat earthers or others with dubious claims.
Produce a model that explains reality and all known phenomena better than the existing models and make some testable predictions.
Lerner doesn't even understand the relevant physics. There is zero chance of him producing a viable model of anything. Anyone that thinks EM forces can explain stellar accelerations around galaxies is a couple of cans short of a six-pack.
Fahckin Gangster, Give the homie all the funding, what are waiting for???
Eric Lerner claims that there seems to be a linear relationship between apparent size and redshift, which is more consistent with a non-expanding universe, while an expanding universe demands a non-linear relationship. However, there’s abundant evidence for the nonlinear relationship between size and redshift. There’s no evidence for any failure of the Tolman test. The Tolman test is a cosmological test that compares the surface brightness of galaxies as a function of their redshift. The test predicts that in a simple expanding universe, the surface brightness of galaxies should diminish proportional to both redshift and distance. This is actually seen in practice. Where is Eric's data that there is a linear relationship? He is just basing it on apparently more massive galaxies in the early universe. But these can be easily explained by bursty star formation and the use of incorrect IMF (initial mass functions). Bursty, rather than gradual, star formation can lead to some early galaxies emitting so much light that it inflates their implied mass. Eric does not seem to know what professional astronomers know.
Oh really, if Eric learner doesn't know what professional astronomer, then why was he able to predict the results from the James Webb telescope before they even happen, yet professional astronomer got 16 predictions wrong, and only one right predictions?
@@moneyheist_- believe if you want to, go down the rabbit hole with him. tired light has been debunked so many times with very good data...his main thesis fails. any professional astronomer can give a list of nonsense from him. there is more and more data coming in from JWST that big bang is supported very strongly...update your research...those apparently wrong predictions were due to initial errors in reporting or interpreting the data...
@@moneyheist_- _"if Eric learner doesn't know what professional astronomer..."_
He doesn't even understand basic physics. Including plasma physics. He's an amateur.
@@ianw7898 my friend, if he doesn't understand basic physics then what how comes
He predicted the results of the James Webb telescope, while those who supposedly understand basic physics got so many predictions wrong?
@@moneyheist_- _"He predicted the results of the James Webb telescope"_
And got it wrong. So, your point is? As expected, the earliest galaxies seen by JWST, out to ~ z = 14, are low mass (~ 100m solar masses), low-metallicity, and have small radii. Did he predict that?
Frankly, even though I consider myself fairly intelligent, I found this completely over my head.
I’ve always thought that there is a serious problem the distance ladder
don't feel bad, I follow this stuff and I was left wondering why his rambling explanation was almost completely incoherent.
Basically we are finding very mature galaxies at the furthest distance. And the prediction made by inflation isn't what we are observing. So they calculated what a prediction would look like if the universe was not expanding. And it fits better with the observations.
I am dumb as a rock & have zero idea about the science but I find his claims understandable. If there are people here who know what they're talking about, please contribute a short comment rebutting Lerner's claims with explanations of the observations that he cites as evidence for his claims.
@@michaelfried3123 his explanations are completely straightforward. There's nothing complicated here.
Don't worry about it! Lerner hasn't got a clue about it either.
I agree the cosmos is not expanding; but, can you prove it's older than 6000 years?
_"Eric Lerner is an award-winning popular science writer and __-independent researcher-__ unqualified self-publicist, famous for rejecting the Big Bang theory in favour of a __-non-standard-__ scientifically impossible plasma cosmology."_
First
Or maybe I have no begaining at all.....
Clickbait video title. Nothing about censorship was said during the video.
You must be new to this debate.
@@tenbear5 : My comment about the video is accurate. Your reply is non sequitur bs.
….. you have to see the full lecture: a link to the Institute is given in the top left at the end of this presentation.
@@brothermine2292 Your comment is bs. Cheers for the jokes.
Pay attention next time Mr Remedial BS
I follow this stuff at a hobbiest level, and I found his explanation almost impossible to follow...
Watch it again. I have no idea about the science but I find his claims understandable. If there are people on this video comment section who what they're talking about, please write a short comment rebutting Lerner's claims with your own explanations of the observations that he cites as evidence for his claims.
hobbyist
His ideas are so far away of being scientific, having so many unnecessary assumptions, that it's a shame, that iai gives him a forum here, that suggests, that this is serious science.
Welp. Goodbye, IAI. Sorry you guys platformed a fraud, way to go.
History will judge your comment poorly.
@@Chris.Davies What a hilariously weak threat.
Lerner either demonstrates any truth of his huge-ass claims and nobody cares about the aging of my comment anyway, or he doesn't and nobody cares about the aging of my comment anyway.
Frauds often claim censorship as a cover, which is a huge issue because idiot followers hardly bother to distinguish real censorship from the claims of whining frauds.
The sun is not a lightbulb in the sky.
@@Chris.Davies It has already judged it. And Lerner is wrong. Why do you think much smarter and better qualified people than Lerner ditched steady-state models even before COBE? Evidence. Or a total lack of it, in the case of SS models, and a bunch of it in favour of BBT. Nothing has changed for the better for SS in the intervening decades. Quite the opposite. Which is why nobody bothers with those models anymore. Except for youtube crackpots.
This is just PURE BS
Big bang is pure BS ,agree.
@@user-fe5lr9zt3y So when were you going to deal with the evidence for it? Lerner can't.
@@ianw7898 What evidence you need?Humans are arrogant species,we don't even know the history of the Earth but "know"what happened billions years ago.With new telescope now that can see so deep into universe and seeing all those massive galaxies that should not be there if "big bang"happened."Big bang" never happened same as evolution and I'm not even religious?
@@user-fe5lr9zt3y _"and seeing all those massive galaxies that should not be there"_
Which ones would those be? All the earliest galaxies seen are tiny.
_""Big bang" never happened same as evolution and I'm not even religious?"_
Yes you are. Don't lie.