Can the James Webb Space Telescope see galaxies over the universe's horizon?

[Admin]

The James Webb Space Telescope has revolutionized astronomy in just two years of operations, but how can it see a galaxy 33.8 billion light-years away in a universe that is only 13.8 billion years old?

Can the James Webb Space Telescope see galaxies over the universe's horizon? : Read more

 

[George²]

There is a better explanation. All of the Big Bang and related hypotheses are wrong. In fact, apparently no other hypothesis about the universe is true either. After they deviate so much from the observed and from... common sense.

 

[Classical Motion]

I don't think energy made mass, I think mass made energy.

 

[Classical Motion]

Light comes from mass. Gravity comes from mass. Light is a constant velocity acceleration of area and volume. Light is an acceleration. Gravity is an acceleration.

Energy is an acceleration. A change or transfer of motion.

All energy comes from mass.

All acceleration comes from mass. SPACE does not come from mass. Space has no acceleration. Mass does not come from space. Mass does not come from energy, energy is an excretion of mass.

We claim to understand the accelerations of light and gravity, without a clue to what mass is.

And use space to do it.

What's the matter?

"We don't know what a tomato is, but we can describe a variety of it." DM.

 

[Helio]

It can be confusing to many what the BBT is, especially if Inflation theory is forced into it, though it is an elegant model to solve two important issues.

BBT was born from Lemaitre's Primeval Atom theory. Lemaitre's published a teaser in 1925, followed by a full GR paper in 1927 that was the first GR solution that fit observations. Contrary to all other models, Lemaitre's model explained the universe as an expanding one, whereas Einstein, de Sitter and others were stuck on the premise that the universe was static, never really changing.

Lemaitre's model assumed the universe to have begun at an unknown size, but he didn't care too much for guessing this since the bulk of his modeling explained the universe from today to such a tiny point. Indeed, there are no observations of the universe when it was tiny for reasons predicted by his model. Namely, the universe would have been comprised of elementary particles in a sea of photons and these particles, especially electrons.

The "Bang" moniker came in 1949 from a rival theorists, Frey Hoyle on a radio show.

Inflation was not introduced until 1979 by Alan Guth.

No doubt many scientists are comfortable with adding Inflation theory to the BBT, but a caveat now and then is warranted.

It is also customary to give Hubble credit for discovering that "distant galaxies appeared to be receding away from each other, and the further apart they were, the faster they were going. In other words, the universe isn't static; it is expanding."

Hubble made it clear that galactic velocities were "apparent velocities". In de Sitter's GR model, he predicted such things, though their motions would be through space, not of space carrying those galaxies away from one another. Hubble never accepted the expansion model, though in his last years in retirement he suggested it could be the case.

The first to discover that the "apparent velocities" were a result of the expansion of space, of course, was Lemaitre (1927). His paper calculated the first linear expansion rate for the universe in this paper. [Lemaitre used Hubble's galaxy distances and Slipher's redshift velocities.] Hubble's more robust work was not till 1929. He held tightly to the credit afforded him and Mt. Wilson for their work.