Top scorer Tom Boere is sidelined with a fractured jaw, so Twente will again rely on the likes of Jari Oosterwijk and Aitor Cantalapiedra for goals after their match winning strikes at Go Ahead last week. Midfielder Tim Holscher is also out of contention for the hosts with a groin injury.
Den Bosch are at full strength here but boss Wil Boessen is set to shake things up following last week's collapse against Telstar. The front four should be unchanged but the likes of Robin Voets and Nicolas Romat could be drafted into the visitors' leaky defence.
Den Bosch beat Twente 2-1 at Stadion De Vliert in November's reverse fixture, however it's the Enschede outfit who lead the head to head overall with six wins to three from ten meetings (one draw).
These two sides were virtually neck and neck in the race for automatic promotion at the turn of the year, but widely contrasting form since the start of January means they are now 17 points apart heading into this Friday's clash at De Grolsch Veste. Den Bosch looked like genuine contenders for much of the campaign after stringing a 16 match unbeaten run together, but they have fallen away tamely over the past few weeks whilst Twente have romped their way clear at the top after dropping just two points from their last 14 matches. Goals from Jari Oosterwijk and Aitor Cantalapiedra ensured that Twente passed another major test against 3rd placed Go Ahead Eagles on match day 30 and their 1-2 success in Deventer consolidated their massive 11 point lead at the top of Eerste Divisie. With just eight games left to play, it won't be long before automatic promotion is secured at the first time of asking for Marino Pusic's side and that could be as soon as match day 33 depending on how other results go. This scenario didn't appear likely at the end of November when Twente suffered a run of three defeats from four matches, but since they have won 13 and drawn one from 14 outings to pull readily clear of Go Ahead, Sparta Rotterdam and this Friday's opponents Den Bosch. Den Bosch were one of the teams that beat Twente back in November and their 2-1 triumph at Stadion De Vliert came amidst a fantastic run of 16 games without defeat that propelled them to top spot at the beginning of 2019. But their form has subsequently gone through the floor losing five and winning just one of their last nine outings – and last week's 3-4 reversal at home to Telstar completely encapsulated how their season has collapsed out of nowhere. Den Bosch appeared to be cruising towards a morale boosting win after a double from Imran Omar and a goal from Vincent Vermeij gave them a 3-0 advantage at half time, but they were blown apart in the second period as the IJmuiden outfit hit back with four goals in a frenzied 22 minute spell. After being destroyed 5-0 by NEC when last on the road a fortnight ago, it's hard to imagine that The Blue White Dragons will be in the right frame of mind to take on the champions elect here – and it's doubtful that they would be good enough even if they were in better shape at present. Twente smashed five goals past a Volendam side that are usually tricky to beat when they last turned out at De Grolsch Veste on match day 29 and they could be set to dish out another hiding in Enschede this week. The hosts look like banker material here for another three points but we're recommending a wager on Pusic's men covering a one goal handicap for any single bets. With Den Bosch in disarray, a big scoreline is expected and we're going for a 4-0 prediction.


text:
Big Bang Theory RIP?
Don Tabor Uncategorized August 18, 2022 1 Minute
Webb Telescope casts doubt on Big Bang Theory.
I come back from fishing this morning only to find cosmology has been turned upside down. To simplify, if the Big Bang Theory is correct, distant galaxies should look very different from nearby galaxies. They don't.
Oh well, it was a fun TV series anyway.
Published by Don Tabor
I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren. View all posts by Don Tabor
Previous Post Putin's on the Brink
Next Post What Is Going On With Ukraine and its War Strategy?
23 thoughts on "Big Bang Theory RIP?"
Very interesting article. In light of the hypothethis that the Big Bang occured and there is some end to the universe I have always asked what came before Big Bang with no answer. Nothing? What about what is beyond the universe, nothing? Even though I am not religious, one of the most compelling questions I have ever been asked was "Do you really think this all happened by accident?" I had no answer because of the depth of our existence and the world and universe we live in. I don't know if we will ever figure it out.
"I had no answer because of the depth of our existence and the world and universe we live in. I don't know if we will ever figure it out."
And we keep looking and trying. But I agree with your sentiment completely.
Back in college, during a "standard issue" bull session, I proposed an alternative to the Big Bang theory called, "The Something and Nothing Theory." This theory held that the Universe itself is most fundamentally composed of Something and Nothing, and everything in the Universe could be identified by its unique configuration of these two basic elements.
In effect — at least to my cultivating mind — identification, or names, or information represented the whole of the observable Cosmos.
Perhaps, however, my theory actually described The Dick Van Dyke Show, or possibly The Young and the Restless, which was all the rage at the party house I attended.
"The Something and Nothing Theory."
I remember a time when you posted pictures labeled with that.
I read the article with interest and anticipation.
I see nothing in it that refutes the essence of the so-called "Big Bang" – that the universe we live in started very small and has been expanding ever since. The author seizes on what he says are anomalies in the earliest images from Webb that confirm his contrarian thinking. That is a little too soon and much too sketchy to throw out the standard model.
Critical thinking skills include evaluating the source of assertions being made. The IAI has as its mission statement …
"So the IAI seeks to challenge the notion that our present accepted wisdom is the truth. It aims to uncover the flaws and limitations in our current thinking in search of alternative and better ways to hold the world."
So, they are eager to publish contrarians' non-peer-reviewed articles. That is fine but it is what it is.
The author wrote his book "The Big Bang Never Happened" in 1991 based on flat universe Plasma Cosmology Theory which has not gained much of a following in cosmology because of the overwhelming evidence of expansion. People see what they want to see and this author has wanted to see a flat and stable universe throughout his career. And, as is very common among contrarians, he blames the lack of acceptance of his ideas on censorship and corruption. Yeah, sure.
Skepticism is a good thing, but, in the end it must be backed by evidence. So, let me know when a peer-reviewed and accepted article overturns the last 100 years of astrophysics. I will read it with interest.
Remember that when Einstein published his special theory of relativity he was working as a clerk in the Patent office.
Actually, he already had a well-established scientific reputation as he began working in that patent office. His first published paper was two years earlier. But, I take your point. He was an outlier at the beginning of his career.
In science, it is the evidence that wins in the end. When the Theory of Relativity made a prediction that Newtonian physics could not and its prediction was confirmed by observation, the case was closed. Plasma Cosmology has not had such a moment.
Understand that I am not saying Auten's alternate theory is right, just that the Big Bang cannot be reconciled with the new observations.
"Big Bang cannot be reconciled with the new observations."
I think it is way to early to say that. But a lot depends on what you mean by "Big Bang." Do you include current ideas about star and galaxy formation, for example? Or do you think that this disproves that the universe started small and has gotten larger over time?
I admit to a rudimentary understanding but I believe the mathematics that says those distant galaxies should appear larger than they do are a effected by the overall expanse of the Universe. Our observations and calculations tell us the approximate age of the universe but tell us nothing about its extent. Is what we can observe a very large or a very small part of the whole. We really do no know.
At any rate, if expansion is to be dismissed as reality, there are countless observations with no viable explanation starting with the red shift itself.
RE: "Critical thinking skills include evaluating the source of assertions being made."
No doubt, but an appeal to authority is never a sufficient basis for judging the truth of an assertion. For this reason, critical thinking skills must also include analysis of the assertion itself.
Here the assertion is that the JWST images show galaxies that are too small, too smooth, too old and too numerous to be explained by the Big Bang hypothesis. It is reported that other astronomers have also been surprised that JWST images reveal smaller, smoother, older and more numerous galaxies than expected:
So, it would seem that accepted theory did not accurately predict the observations JWST was able to make. Under the circumstances it is reasonable to apply critical thinking skills to the analysis of the assertion itself, which holds that the Big Bang hypothesis is wrong in some way.
Besides, peer review is overrated.
Thanks for the link. The four findings – after two weeks of work on the first data – raise questions about past ideas about galaxy formation. They do not challenge the fundamental observed fact that the Universe is expanding.
RE: "They do not challenge the fundamental observed fact that the Universe is expanding."
Of course they do. For example, if the red shift is proportionate to distance, then the most distant galaxies should appear larger to us than the new images show.
"For example, if the red shift is proportionate to distance, then the most distant galaxies should appear larger to us than the new images show."
It is a little more complicated than that.
You might enjoy this article . . .
https://tinyurl.com/mwffyeyc
RE: "It is a little more complicated than that."
Perhaps, but the result is the same, even according to your link.
Well the link points out that this effect does not kick in until you are looking 14.6 light-years away. See the graph. So the data is at the very edges and is very preliminary.
Clearly, there is plenty to think about and try to understand in the new data. People who study the size of the universe, its curvature, the effects of dark matter and dark energy, star and galaxy formation, etc. have plenty to chew on. To conclude that the entire model of an expanding universe is not reality is about six bridges too far, IMHO.
It is also worth noting that the COBE data set goes back even further in time than these images. Its observations are very strong evidence for the current expansion model.
I see where this contrarian is getting a lot of play in "conservative" and Christian media (e.g. The Trumpet). I find that very interesting and it is part of an age old tendency for Believers to cherry pick science looking for the hand of God.
RE: "To conclude that the entire model of an expanding universe is not reality is about six bridges too far, IMHO."
No one has concluded that. It is simply and factually true that the new observations cannot be reconciled with the existing model. The contrarian view is the one that denies this reality.
"No one has concluded that."
Except the author of the original piece who titled his work "The Big Bang Didn't Happen."
RE: "Except the author of the original piece who titled his work 'The Big Bang Didn't Happen.'"
Do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a conclusion?
I imagine that the author of the piece does as well. He has, in fact, concluded that the Big Bang never happened. He put it in his title "The Big Bang Never Happened" and he put it in the last sentence of his article where his last sentence is "Cosmology can emerge from its crisis once it is recognized that the Big Bang never happened."
Why you feel the need to attack my reasonable opinion with nonsense (someone HAS concluded that) and then refusing to acknowledge when the error of your attack is made clear, I leave to you to figure out.
The million dollar questions are where did that supposed initial state of high density that exploded and keeps expanding come from and what is beyond the edge of the universe. Those questions alone shed skeptism on Big Bang because the answer can't be nothing for either.
"Those questions alone shed skeptism on Big Bang because the answer can't be nothing for either."
According to quantum theory things pop in and out of existence all the time.
Not buying a poof its magic theory. That would be synonimous with the explanation provided by the bible. Everything has to come from something. Matter doesnt magically appear from nothing.
"Matter doesnt magically appear from nothing."
Actual it does. Though it is not "magic." Completely empty space is full of virtual particles bubbling in and out of existence. The force of their presence has been carefully measured. There is no reasonable doubt that it is an aspect of reality.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The hit HBO series may be taking a year off due to Alec Berg's busy schedule.
Co-showrunner Alec Berg thinks the series might expand beyond the original plan.
Could this be the end of the road for Pied Piper?