According to new data (2022) from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Big Bang never happened.
The state of the universe could either be one of expansion, contraction, or stability. If the big bang was true then we would expect to see evidence of a universe that had previously expanded – and possibly at some point, additional evidence that it had either stabilized or had begun to contract.
To be very specific – the JWST has returned pictures that demonstrate the galaxies of the universe are uniformly smooth, small and old, which suggests that instead of a big bang, the universe was created in-place all at the same time – despite some minor variations in expansion or contraction.
Why are too-small galaxies a problem? In a big bang (previously expanding) universe galaxies that are older (farther away) would have expanded with the space around them, meaning they would look larger and larger as they got farther away. In fact we find that they are uniform. This suggests the conclusion stated above.
This is in regards to galaxies that are both larger and smaller than our own, and with both greater and lesser luminosities (it's uniform accross time and space).
Even more specifically, since their light had left them when they were closer to us, and red shift is proportional to distance, the red shift also doesn't match up. Suggesting that at any big-bang or creation stype event they were created Separately from us i.e. created in-place.
The Big Bang requires the existance of superdense galaxies called mighty mouse galaxies that eventually collided with each other to produce present day galaxies which are “deformed” or “not-smooth” in that sense. However on a grand scale most galaxies are actually quite uniform in and of themselves – i.e. smooth – indicating that the universe was created in-place and did not emerge from some proto-state consisting of so-called mighty mouse galaxies.
That is, galaxies today were not created by the merging of other galaxies; they were created with their deformities and spins “as is”, “in-place”. This is not to say some galaxies have not collied; only that it is an incredibly rare exception and is not even close to being any kind of “rule”. The merger theory has been discredited; merging galaxies are the exception; they are not common.
The thing is, galaxies can't grow larger without merging; this means they were created as they are.
We calculate the age of galaxies based on their color, size, red-shift and so on. The JWST has revealed galaxies that exhibit properties that mark them as over a billion years old. This means they are older than the big bang. This means the big bang didn't happen.
Let's be clear on what is being seen: In a “Big Bang World”, as you look further back in time – i.e. farther away – you will expect to see older and older galaxies. At some point you will stop seeing galaxies. Theoretically this is either because of red shift (and the space expanding faster than the speed of light) but because of the cosmic microwave background noise we will expect to see some of the oldest galaxies – but in any case, whatever – in any case what we actually see is that the farther you look back the distribution of galaxies is uniform and that their colors are too hot.
Meaning quite specifically, galaxies in an extremely advanced state were created as is, in place, and are detectable just a few hundred million years (!!!!!) after the big bang. Suggesting they were created as is, in place, essentially at the moment of the big bang slash creation event.
In fact the images from the JWST show over 100,000 times (times!!) as many galaxies as predicted by the big bang conformant research.
Or, of course, science is wrong and we don't know anything. At all.
TO avoid the obvious implications of a universe that was created as is, in-place, scientists have been scrambling to adopt a new theory. There are however serious problems with all existing proposals.
Status: Full of holes. For example, this theory can't be actually (physicaly) a real and true theory because it violates the laws of thermodynamics. For example it does not explain the loss of energy in the hubble red shift relation. They would need to discover an entirely new physical process (such as a new kind of chemistry whereby, for example, gold splits into salt, water and oxygen) to explain how this is possible.
It also fails to explain how light in the universe has apparently been travelling for billions of years. Was the light (the back-history of the universe) also created at the same time as the universe itself? This also implies creation!