James Webb Space Telescope unveils surprising 'Red Monsters' in the early universe

[Admin]

Three ultramassive galaxies found by the James Webb Space Telescope have astronomers reconsidering how galaxies grew so quickly in the first billion years after the Big Bang.

James Webb Space Telescope unveils surprising 'Red Monsters' in the early universe : Read more

 

[Harry Costas]

Some assume the Big Bang is real, and then proceed to assume.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

Quite understandable (apart from the high star formation rate) and quite common:

We find no tension with the Λ cold dark-matter model in our sample. However, three ultra-massive galaxies (logM★/M⊙ ≳ 11.0, where M★ is the stellar mass and M⊙ is the mass of the Sun) require an exceptional fraction of 50 per cent of baryons converted into stars—two to three times higher than the most efficient galaxies at later epochs. The contribution from an active galactic nucleus is unlikely because of their extended emission. Ultra-massive galaxies account for as much as 17 per cent of the total cosmic star-formation-rate density17 at redshifts between about five and six.

Some assume the Big Bang is real, and then proceed to assume.

The "big bang" space expansion is an observed fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology)

 

[Classical Motion]

I have observed the moon, stars and MW in the dark pool of still water. So much for observed facts. I’ll bet one could even measure those images. And once measured, some make it dogma. And study the dark pool the rest of their lives.

Just a personal observation. I believe that sight and measurement can be most deceiving.

I think light, our basic premise and our basic tool, has fooled us.

I believe light is quantum, not like analog radio. And that the shift is a quantum shift, not a Doppler shift.

And we conclude the cosmos is expanding at a fast rate. An illusion. A dark pool.

The first radio transmissions were not waves. The were sparktus interruptus.

A flux of duty cycle presence.

Just like light.

Later with regulation, no flux was allowed. Only one duty cycle for radio was allowed.

And today we are back to flux. BUT it’s a broadband SEQUENTIAL ordered flux, call spread spectrum. Man-made man-ordered flux.

And now we also have arrayed emitter flux. Beamed Radar Flux. With another different order.

Spark flux is still outlawed. But still generated with every switch and contact.

Just supposition.

 

[Harry Costas]

Classical Motion​

I like your logic

 

[CreatedEvolution]

I believe galaxies can form from space dust. Infinite dust equals infinite weight. While 13.8 billion years is unbelievably young for me. I think the universe is more like 13.8 billion eons or longest lengths of time. I also think it is rather selfish to consider there to be no intelligent life out there. The question is will our paths ever cross in this vast universe.

I love evolution but a theory from 1927 should be reconsidered. Observing galaxies when we do not understand how they operate or form is all theoretical. We should have a new theory like my chemistry theory that is “like perpetual motion chemistry equation” matter accumulates heats up escapes repeats. I think all theories prior to technology should be evaluated And rewritten .

 

[Harry Costas]

Your opinions are respected.
May I ask that you keep on researching,
Yes, there are many different theories, and some have no foundations.
My opinion should not influence your path.

 

[Unclear Engineer]

The "big bang" space expansion is an observed fact.

I would not agree that the "big bang" is an observed fact.

The observed recession of the other objects in the universe is a "fact" so far as we can tell (although there are other attempts to explain the observed red shifts).

But, extrapolation of that observed expansion backward in time to a single point, (or whatever nearly a single point that each theorist chooses to start saying "I don't know before that,") is still just a theory.

It is the most popular theory, but it necessarily involves assumptions of additional, unverified matter and energy that we do not understand for 95% of its physics. Calling that a "fact" is closing ones mind to other possibilities. We should not be doing that - it is unscientific.

In order to advance our understanding, we need to keep track of what we can actually measure, and what we can only assume. Otherwise, we will be deluding ourselves as well as our listeners.

Now that we have a new, more powerful telescope that was designed to see what we think should be the "first" stars, and are discovering all sorts of unexpected things, we are being told that there are even more unexplained parameters that can be used to "fix' the Big Bang Theory. Those are just more assumptions.

And, the very foundation of our cosmological models is assumptions about things being the same (roughly) throughout the universe. If we were to allow the speed of light and the force of gravity to change with position and time, and the rate of time passage to change unevenly in different parts of the universe, or space to flow as well as expand and "bend", we could match pretty much any observations.

But, somehow, those alternate assumptions are "forbidden" by the same theorists who want to enshrine their own newly proposed time variations in "dark energy" and "dark matter" that make the new observations still not invalidate their favorite theory.

And, even with all of those assumptions, we still don't have a theory that explains why there is not as much anti-matter in the universe as there is regular matter.

The closest we get to "facts" is the Theory of Relativity, which does an excellent job of explaining and predicting what our observations are and will be at our only tiny sample of the universe, where we are and when we are, now. It does not actually explain why things appear that way. And, it is really only an assumption that they would appear the same from a much different location and/or at a much different time. It can't even explain the observed speeds of stars in galaxies without adding the wildly tunable assumption of undetectable "dark matter" in whatever amounts are need in whatever locations are needed.

So, please stop pushing assumptions as facts.

 

[Harry Costas]

​

Hello​

Unclear Engineer​

Well put.
To add to that, the BBT of years past was supported by the Church to explain creation. Governments supported this and taught it in schools.
Politics has funded the BBT for many decades.
For many years, people who were against the BBT were canceled in forums and science institutions.

Now, with all the scientific evidence and images, the BBT is left to be discussed by people who fell in love with the theory, regardless of zero foundation.

Think about it!
13.4 billion years deep field. Billions of galaxies in various stages and forms exist in all directions.
The BBT says the Universe began 13.8 billion years ago.