Sunmaster

And there it is..... ------------------------------------ The Big Bang didn't happen What do the James Webb images really show? "The truth that these papers don’t report is that the hypothesis that the JWST’s images are blatantly and repeatedly contradicting is the Big Bang Hypothesis that the universe began 14 billion years ago in an incredibly hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since. Since that hypothesis has been defended for decades as unquestionable truth by the vast majority of cosmological theorists, the new data is causing these theorists to panic. “Right now I find myself lying awake at three in the morning,” says Alison Kirkpatrick, an astronomer at the University of Kansas in Lawrence, “and wondering if everything I’ve done is wrong.” [...] "Too old and too many galaxies mean the same thing. The JWST uses many different filters to take its images in the infrared part of the spectrum. Thus, it can see the colors of the distant galaxies. This in turn allows astronomers to estimate the age of the stars in these galaxies because young, hot stars are blue in color and older, cooler stars, like our sun, are yellow or red in color. According to Big Bang theory, the most distant galaxies in the JWST images are seen as they were only 400-500 million years after the origin of the universe. Yet already some of the galaxies have shown stellar populations that are over a billion years old. Since nothing could have originated before the Big Bang, the existence of these galaxies demonstrates that the Big Bang did not occur." [...] "While Big Bang theorists were shocked and panicked by these new results, Riccardo and I (and a few others) were not. In fact, a week before the JWST images were released we published online a paper that detailed accurately what the images would show. We could do this with confidence because more and more data of all kinds has been contradicting the Big Bang hypothesis for years." [...] "Readers may well be wondering at this point why they have not read of this collapse of the Big Bang hypothesis in major media outlets by now and why the authors of so many recent papers have not pointed to this collapse themselves. The answer lies in what I term the “Emperor’s New Clothes Effect”—if anyone questions the Big Bang, they are labeled stupid and unfit for their jobs. Unfortunately, funding for cosmology comes from a very few government sources controlled by a handful of committees that are dominated by Big Bang theorists. These theorists have spent their lives building the Big Bang theory. Those who openly question the theory simply don’t get funded." source: https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215?fbclid=IwAR34Oe_RTJjCNA8_Mgs5z_pj188NrQzkGWGECRpBnbMyak7Q08sMvDjwz_0

Good post. From what I understand of it and your other posts, you ask people to differentiate between the ideal of science (the incorruptible and pure methodology of science) from the more mundane, mainstream aspect of it (science corrupted by politics, business, more or less involuntary human error, lack of knowledge and understanding, would be scientists on forums), whereby the first aspires to reveal an absolute truth (or close to it), and the second is more fallible because influenced by other, less ideal factors. Some scientific interpretations (theories) are shared by millions and bundled in broad belief systems ("the material reality is the only one"), others stand out for their uniqueness (Tesla, Rupert Sheldrake). We are then asked to ignore the "impure" science and rather focus on the ideal of science, because that's where unbiased knowledge comes from. I'd be all for that, but I'd like for you and all other materialists to have the same consideration when it comes to matters of belief. There is an Ideal and Absolute Truth, and then there are countless interpretations of that truth. Some interpretations are shared by millions and bundled in broad belief systems (religions), others stand out for their uniqueness (David Icke, A. Crowley). The problem is that materialists look at the interpretations and see flaws in them or perhaps don't understand them, criticize, ridicule and dismiss them. By doing that they think that they also "debunked" the Ideal, when all they did was to attack an interpretation of it. So for me, philosophically speaking, the pure methodology of science is closely related to the Ideal of spirituality. Both aspire to reveal the ultimate truth. Both aspire to focus on the white light and not at the rainbow after the prism of the ego.

"An ignorant mind is precisely not a spotless, empty vessel, but one that’s filled with the clutter of irrelevant or misleading life experiences, theories, facts, intuitions, strategies, algorithms, heuristics, metaphors, and hunches that regrettably have the look and feel of useful and accurate knowledge…What’s curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge." ~ David Dunning

If you're looking to move away from engineering, it seems the new path is already clear in front of you: become a writer. ????