JWST recent pictures of the oldest galaxies

Mar 26, 2023
2
2
15
Visit site
If these galaxies are over 13 billion years old and they never had time to form in the short period they presume they did after the big bang, if the universe is curved or shaped like a dougnut as some scientist suggest, could we in fact be looking at the back of our own galaxies, a bit like looking all the way around the world at the back of our heads?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio and Atlan0001
If these galaxies are over 13 billion years old and they never had time to form in the short period they presume they did after the big bang, if the universe is curved or shaped like a dougnut as some scientist suggest, could we in fact be looking at the back of our own galaxies, a bit like looking all the way around the world at the back of our heads?
"Looking" to, observing to, some time a little later after events, not instantaneously with events. 'Observation' is of histories, including light time histories. The speed of light is so damn slow (-300,000kps to +0, as opposed to +300,000kps to -0; actually, the same '0' in both cases) in at least one of its dimensions that it can't keep up with real space and real time 0-point real.
 
Last edited:
If these galaxies are over 13 billion years old and they never had time to form in the short period they presume they did after the big bang, if the universe is curved or shaped like a dougnut as some scientist suggest, could we in fact be looking at the back of our own galaxies, a bit like looking all the way around the world at the back of our heads?
Good question.

To have light travel completely around a "closed" universe so that we could see that original emission is a way to help people understand how a "closed" universe can be described. The more distant regions has space expanding faster than light, so to actually see these emissions seems highly unlikely.

This is true even though we can see light (redshifted to microwaves) found in the CMBR. This light was emitted throughout the universe essentially simultaneously. We are seeing the light that has finally reached from a spherical shell from 13.8 billion years ago. Like layers of an onion that is pealing away from the inside, where we appear to be in the center.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndyH
Good question.

To have light travel completely around a "closed" universe so that we could see that original emission is a way to help people understand how a "closed" universe can be described. The more distant regions has space expanding faster than light, so to actually see these emissions seems highly unlikely.

This is true even though we can see light (redshifted to microwaves) found in the CMBR. This light was emitted throughout the universe essentially simultaneously. We are seeing the light that has finally reached from a spherical shell from 13.8 billion years ago. Like layers of an onion that is pealing away from the inside, where we appear to be in the center.
I disagree, as you would probably expect of me. That production and view of youth is a universal constant of a multidimensional Multiverse-Universe and, thus, would always be and show up in the place it is, again universally and constant, and in fact have little to nothing to do, or only partially to do, with the speeds themselves of light. A universe faster than the speed of light involved would, like you say as well as me, be unobserved and unobservable, and that is exactly what it is (except for physics such as the physic of entropy). That production and view of youth are eternal and as such has been observed, and will be observed, in its place in the distant Horizon, throughout infinities of space and throughout eternities of time.

Observable light time histories do exist for some distance out into the universe from Earth before merging with universal constants of the universes.
 
Last edited:
"Observable light time histories do exist for some distance out into the universe from Earth before merging with universal constants of the universes."

Not to say, exactly, that this has anything to do with the above, but I once read that there is a glitch, an unexplained, an inexplicable, temporary leveling off, flattening out, point almost exactly half-way to the far Horizon of the [observed] universe. That is, if I'm remembering it right because it was a long time ago that I read it. It may have been some distance farther along but not closer than half-way, of that I am very sure. I've searched but haven't found anything on it since.

There is an explanation for the observed -- from Earth -- sudden momentary reversal of planets' travel in their travel across the viewing plane. Imagine that, seeing such a mass of planet suddenly go into reverse in its orbital travel, then just as suddenly go into reverse again and continue on in its orbital travel. The reversal isn't real, but certainly interesting.
 
Last edited:
I did find a reference, today, to what is referred to as the "cosmic jerk" in rate of expansion, but I just don't know if that is what I read about and am searching for. Could be though, could very well be. But, the transition I picture from light time histories to a dimension of universal constancy in the frame on the [observed] path out to the [collapsed constant] of Horizon could be a smooth transition, a smooth flow, from the one into the other, rather than a "cosmic jerk."

I don't believe, I won't believe, I can't possibly believe, in such an incidental coincidence of timing of a non-frozen, non-universal constant, picture of youthful universe arriving in a frame of time, having gone through at the very least a "cosmic jerk," if you want to think of it that way, just at the right time when Earth scientists have the means to see it. That is far, far, too much of a coincidence. Almost as if the universe plays practical jokes such scientists will so easily fall for. Of course, it isn't playing jokes, but our astro-physicist-scientists are falling for one anyway.
 
Last edited:
Atlant0101, I would enjoy reading what you would have to say in the framework that is within mainstream science. Your ATM (Against The Mainstream) views are not that helpful, at least to me.

Perhaps you could put your ATM sections in brackets or something.

Mainstream science supports faster than light regions of space expansion. It also doesn't recognize any other universe since the evidence for another, or an infinite number, is almost zero. A cold spot in the CMBR is not that supportive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndyH
Atlant0101, I would enjoy reading what you would have to say in the framework that is within mainstream science. Your ATM (Against The Mainstream) views are not that helpful, at least to me.

Perhaps you could put your ATM sections in brackets or something.

Mainstream science supports faster than light regions of space expansion. It also doesn't recognize any other universe since the evidence for another, or an infinite number, is almost zero. A cold spot in the CMBR is not that supportive.
Truly odd since both Einstein and Hawking, along with many others throughout history, went against the mainstream ("Against The Mainstream" (the "ATM")). Again, and again, and again, I've quoted one or another on this forum, only interpreting their "against the mainstream" views somewhat differently upon occasion. History, books, and articles are loaded down with "against the mainstream" visualizations and realizations. It's how we reached the 21st century and the edge of space (the greats going after the infinities: Going after ever newer and previously unobserved frontier universe horizons). None of what you say about the universe at large (the 'High Frontier', the 'New World', at large) is absolute proof of what you say here and now. It's why we keep finding newness, and difference, and possibilities, to it.

Do you really want me to quote what Einstein said about your narrowly closed-minded view above once more? Well, since you have such a [not even subtle] more or less violent view of me and what I see and have to say, I find it necessary to quote him once more:

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds ...." Take a hammer of imagination sometime to your indoctrination, to your mainstream doctrinaire stone.
 
Last edited:
Sep 11, 2022
97
26
110
Visit site
Einstein and Hawking were not infallible, they made mistakes and had to change their minds about some things. Einstein, in particular, was not the top mathematician of his generation, not even in the top 100. But his math skill was way, way higher than the average high school math teacher's. Like a skyscraper compared to a toadstool. No offense to Atlan0101, but I suspect that his math skill -- and by extension, abstract thinking skill coupled with ruthless self-criticism that is the foundation of the scientific method -- compares to the average high school math teacher's like ... a toadstool to a skyscraper.

What does that leave? It leaves "word paintings" that are little more than self-indulgent exercises, a dealer getting high on their own supply. Somebody craves fame and recognition, but the chances of their output yielding anything meaningful about laws of nature are about as high as the chances of Hunter Biden's "artworks" being worth a penny ... or a thousand monkeys typing out a Shakespeare play by random chance.
 
Yes, many greats engaged in theories against the mainstream, but their new terminology was rigidly defined, their theories dovetailed with what we already knew and they offered evidence to support their theories. None of those conditions are met by the ATM discussions I see going on around here so I just ignore them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Do you really want me to quote what Einstein said about your narrowly closed-minded view above once more? Well, since you have such a [not even subtle] more or less violent view of me and what I see and have to say, I find it necessary to quote him once more:
I stated that I would "enjoy reading your mainstream views". ATM views can someday become mainstream so I'm not opposed to them in general. Separating these from your ATM views is a request that, IMO, would get you more readers. If that's "more or less violent" to you, then we are done here.
 
Just as closed (and closing) systems exist, so do open (and opening) systems exist. There are far too many people in this world today who believe in the first, who have been too thoroughly taught to believe in the first. And far too few who have broken the lock to believe in the second . . . to believe the second absolutely parallels the first in existence as just opposite sides of exactly the same coin.

And . . . I predicted, right here on this forum, what the Webb telescope was going to find before it found it. That view, that prediction, too, was more or less violently opposed. But such is nothing new to me, nothing new at all ("...., why is it you keep jumping into manure and come up smelling like a rose?!" || "...., you need to stop being so overwhelming all the time. You make too many people feel small!").

Abraham Lincoln is said to have said, "If I had eight hours to cut down a tree, I'd spend seven sharpening my ax." I've spent 70 years, more, sharpening my ax and I will never stop, nor stop using it.
 
Last edited:
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
If these galaxies are over 13 billion years old and they never had time to form in the short period they presume they did after the big bang, if the universe is curved or shaped like a dougnut as some scientist suggest, could we in fact be looking at the back of our own galaxies, a bit like looking all the way around the world at the back of our heads?
The donut shaped universe sounds sort of like a dipole magnet. In any direction you either can look S or N. So for instance if you look N your line of sight takes you to the back of your head looking N at the S pole. And vice versa.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AndyH
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
"Observable light time histories do exist for some distance out into the universe from Earth before merging with universal constants of the universes."

Not to say, exactly, that this has anything to do with the above, but I once read that there is a glitch, an unexplained, an inexplicable, temporary leveling off, flattening out, point almost exactly half-way to the far Horizon of the [observed] universe. That is, if I'm remembering it right because it was a long time ago that I read it. It may have been some distance farther along but not closer than half-way, of that I am very sure. I've searched but haven't found anything on it since.

There is an explanation for the observed -- from Earth -- sudden momentary reversal of planets' travel in their travel across the viewing plane. Imagine that, seeing such a mass of planet suddenly go into reverse in its orbital travel, then just as suddenly go into reverse again and continue on in its orbital travel. The reversal isn't real, but certainly interesting.

I’m not sure if I understand your theory about ‘observable time histories’. But regarding your “glitches” and alternative views of the BBT universe it’s worth pointing out two very dubious explanations put forward to validate the many failed predictions made by the Big Bang theory.
Both relate to supernovae light curves. If one analyses the well known Knop et al 2003 paper on the 11 hi redshift SCP supernovae 1a samples, it is worth noting that the data including the HST datapoints *did not* match an expanding template. In fact the data best fits a z=0 non expanding model of the universe ( no big bang)
The only way to make the data fit the BBT model was for Knop et al to arbitrarily “adjust” the HST data for each Sn1a by as much as 15% . The authors admit as much in the paper. And you can see how this fiddling of luminosity of the HST data can turn a non expanding best fit into an expanding one simple doing your own graph of the data and using the *unadjusted* HST data points for any of the 11 supernovae.
Further to this is the so called “acceleration” of the Big Bang. This is a fix to cover up another very big hole in the BBT. Because what’s actually happening is once again the predicted time delays of the lightcurves of the very distant supernovae are not observed. Contrary to BB theory and further strengthening the argument for a non expanding model of the universe.
Of course the BB theorists can’t admit this. So they perform a mathematical sleight of hand and say the reason why the predicted time stretching of the lightcurves is not observed...is because these objects are farther away and thus fainter then predicted. Which means the BB theorists can pretend that most of the predicted time stretched lightcurves aren’t visible because only the shorter duration peak brightest sections of the lightcurves can be seen at these great distances from earth. And this fakery can then be explained by acceleration.
 
Aug 6, 2020
13
8
4,515
Visit site
Both relate to supernovae light curves. If one analyses the well known Knop et al 2003 paper on the 11 hi redshift SCP supernovae 1a samples, it is worth noting that the data including the HST datapoints *did not* match an expanding template. In fact the data best fits a z=0 non expanding model of the universe ( no big bang)
That's not actually the case. The paper adopts FLRW cosmology, so the only way to get redshift is with expansion. There is no non-expanding model on any of their plots, because it would just be a line at redshift zero. All supernovea regardless of distance would have zero redshift, which doesn't fit the data at all. The "no big bang" solutions in their plots are bouncing cosmologies, not non-expanding ones.

Because what’s actually happening is once again the predicted time delays of the lightcurves of the very distant supernovae are not observed.
They are actually.
 
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
“That's not actually the case. The paper adopts FLRW cosmology, so the only way to get redshift is with expansion. There is no non-expanding model on any of their plots, because it would just be a line at redshift zero. All supernovea regardless of distance would have zero redshift, which doesn't fit the data at all. The "no big bang" solutions in their plots are bouncing cosmologies, not non-expanding ones.”

There is no non expanding model analysis in these papers because they didn’t bother checking for z=0. Handy omission considering if you do check for z=0 on these 13 SN1a from Knop et al at least you will find a better fit to the data.
You ignore the fact that the HST data was arbitrarily adjusted by up to 15 % in luminosity to make the expanding model fit the data. This is bad science because the usual method is to do a control test. Why didn’t any of these SCP papers do a z=0 fit to the data?
Check out page 7


“They are actually.”

Blondin et al has no fits of datapoints to template. Proves nothing. And Goldhaber does supply fits, but all 35 SN1a data to one template. Once again proves nothing . Only Knop provides individual fits for independent fitting for of each SN1a to z=0. And these show...no time dilation is a better fit. That is, if you bother doing a z=0 test fit. Which none of the above could be bothered doing.
Its obvious. If you have lightcurve data that shows no expected time dilation for a hi redshiftEd SN1a afterglow, how do you make no observed time dilation fit a time dilated lightcurve for your imaginary expanding universe? Simple. Either artificially adjust some of the data as Knop did...or

Pretend the peak is fainter then it actually is. Now your observed lightcurve fits the first part of your stretched template because you’ve pretended that yes there *is* more stretched lightcurve to be seen,...but it’s too just far away and this too faint to observe. Suddenly you’ve proven that the universe is expanding. Based on assumed data. Not observed data!

 
Last edited:
Aug 6, 2020
13
8
4,515
Visit site
There is no non expanding model analysis in these papers because they didn’t bother checking for z=0. Handy omission considering if you do check for z=0 on these 13 SN1a from Knop et al at least you will find a better fit to the data... Why didn’t any of these SCP papers do a z=0 fit to the data?

But you just claimed the non-expanding model fits better, but now you agree there is no such analysis? And that's simply not true as I explained. z=0 in fig 7 would be just a vertical line at z=0. All SN would have zero redshift, this is completely incompatible with the data. In FLRW redshift comes from expansion, if there is no expansion there can be no redshift. Such a model cannot explain these data with redshifts from 0.3 to 1.0, they should also be zero. The fact that the observed redshifts of the SN are non-zero disproves the non-expanding model. There is nothing to fit in this model.

You ignore the fact that the HST data was arbitrarily adjusted by up to 15 % in luminosity to make the expanding model fit the data. This is bad science because the usual method is to do a control test.
Check out page 7
All of the lines of fig 7 are expanding models, and there are many more possible parameters. And these adjustments are not arbitrary. K corrections are necessary when dealing with photometry at different redshifts through fixed filters, dust in the host also affects the brightness. Then there is the fact that SN-1a are not all exactly the same, they are standardisable through measuring the width.

Blondin et al has no fits of datapoints to template. Proves nothing. And Goldhaber does supply fits, but all 35 SN1a data to one template. Once again proves nothing . Only Knop provides individual fits for independent fitting for of each SN1a to z=0.
Blondin uses spectral templates to fit spectroscopic ages. It is an independent test no less. Goldhaber et al. look at 35 SCP SN and 18 low redshift ones, that's your control test. And they do fit the supernovae individually and together, Fig 3 is from the individual fits. Knop et al. has no plot testing for time dilation.
 
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
But you just claimed the non-expanding model fits better, but now you agree there is no such analysis? And that's simply not true as I explained. z=0 in fig 7 would be just a vertical line at z=0. All SN would have zero redshift, this is completely incompatible with the data. In FLRW redshift comes from expansion, if there is no expansion there can be no redshift. Such a model cannot explain these data with redshifts from 0.3 to 1.0, they should also be zero. The fact that the observed redshifts of the SN are non-zero disproves the non-expanding model. There is nothing to fit in this model.


All of the lines of fig 7 are expanding models, and there are many more possible parameters. And these adjustments are not arbitrary. K corrections are necessary when dealing with photometry at different redshifts through fixed filters, dust in the host also affects the brightness. Then there is the fact that SN-1a are not all exactly the same, they are standardisable through measuring the width.


Blondin uses spectral templates to fit spectroscopic ages. It is an independent test no less. Goldhaber et al. look at 35 SCP SN and 18 low redshift ones, that's your control test. And they do fit the supernovae individually and together, Fig 3 is from the individual fits. Knop et al. has no plot testing for time dilation.
A control test means testing if the data fits a non expanding
model. You don’t control test just the theoretical assumption being made.
And make up the results for the competing model
That would be like a vaccine maker only testing the vaccine results.
And pretending those not taking the vax were worse off.

I never said there was no analysis at z=0!
On the contrary if one fits the data to z=0 you get as good
a fit if not better. Not least..Considering the various SCP sourced fits
(Knop 2003 ) fiddled the data to make it fit their expanding model.
Pg 7 Knop.

What I said was Knop,Blondin, Goldhaber et al all claimed the
data doesn’t fit z=0. But didn’t even bother to check there own
Erroneous claims with a z=0 fit. Can you show me where in your
2 cited papers or Knop 2003 where exactly they tried fitting the
data to z=0? I don’t think you can. Seeing as they didnt.

You also say “ if there is no expansion there can be no redshift.”
What evidence do you have to back up this claim?
For starters: the erroneous claim by BBT supporters that energy is ”lost” in transit in a non expanding model.
How so? No energy is lost. Don’t forget that light emitted
between 10-20 nm is the same energy as it’s redshifted counterpart
20-40nm. Not less. Seeing as although it’s 1/2 energy for double the wavelength..but double the range than emitted. Which equals out to no
Energy lost in any “tired light” model
And..Fact is so far Hubble, then JWST have only verified the non
expanding z=0 models predictions of mature metal rich galaxies
as far as we can see. And ruled out any BBT “early universe”
predictions as false.
 
Aug 6, 2020
13
8
4,515
Visit site
A control test means testing if the data fits a non expanding model. You don’t control test just the theoretical assumption being made.

And that's what Blondin et al. and Goldhaber et al. did. There is no assumptions about expansion going into fitting the timescale of these SN. And yet, they find evidence of time dilation which follows the (1+z) expectation from the expanding model. In tried light there should be no such time dilation.

What I said was Knop,Blondin, Goldhaber et al all claimed the data doesn’t fit z=0.
And what exactly do you mean by "fit z=0"? Where exactly is this claim made in Goldhaber et al.?

On the contrary if one fits the data to z=0 you get as good a fit if not better.
And how do you know that?

You also say “ if there is no expansion there can be no redshift.”
The key context you cut off: "in FLRW". FLRW is the metric which describes expanding and contracting space. If there is no expansion in FLRW then there is no redshift. The Knop et al. analysis is based in this model.

Seeing as although it’s 1/2 energy for double the wavelength..but double the range than emitted.
A photon has an energy given by h * c / wavelength. There is no "range" in this equation. Energy is lost, in any model.

And..Fact is so far Hubble, then JWST have only verified the non expanding z=0 models predictions of mature metal rich galaxies as far as we can see. And ruled out any BBT “early universe” predictions as false.
False. JWST spectroscopy has consistently shown galaxies at high redshift have lower metallicities than modern day galaxies, even accounting for their low mass. Most are about 1/10 solar abundances. Metallicity is one of the few diagnostics which does not depend on cosmology or distance, so this discrepancy is completely incompatible with tired light models. Some of the earliest galaxies are also massive relative to their age, but they would be dwarfs in the modern universe. GNz-11 for example was supprisingly bright when discovered and yet it's mass in stars is only 5x10^8 solar masses, pretty much the same as a little dwarf galaxy like the Small Magellanic Cloud.

 
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
But you just claimed the non-expanding model fits better, but now you agree there is no such analysis? And that's simply not true as I explained. z=0 in fig 7 would be just a vertical line at z=0. All SN would have zero redshift, this is completely incompatible with the data. In FLRW redshift comes from expansion, if there is no expansion there can be no redshift. Such a model cannot explain these data with redshifts from 0.3 to 1.0, they should also be zero. The fact that the observed redshifts of the SN are non-zero disproves the non-expanding model. There is nothing to fit in this model.


All of the lines of fig 7 are expanding models, and there are many more possible parameters. And these adjustments are not arbitrary. K corrections are necessary when dealing with photometry at different redshifts through fixed filters, dust in the host also affects the brightness. Then there is the fact that SN-1a are not all exactly the same, they are standardisable through measuring the width.


Blondin uses spectral templates to fit spectroscopic ages. It is an independent test no less. Goldhaber et al. look at 35 SCP SN and 18 low redshift ones, that's your control test. And they do fit the supernovae individually and together, Fig 3 is from the individual fits. Knop et al. has no plot testing for time dilation.
And that's what Blondin et al. and Goldhaber et al. did. There is no assumptions about expansion going into fitting the timescale of these SN. And yet, they find evidence of time dilation which follows the (1+z) expectation from the expanding model. In tried light there should be no such time dilation.


And what exactly do you mean by "fit z=0"? Where exactly is this claim made in Goldhaber et al.?


And how do you know that?


The key context you cut off: "in FLRW". FLRW is the metric which describes expanding and contracting space. If there is no expansion in FLRW then there is no redshift. The Knop et al. analysis is based in this model.


A photon has an energy given by h * c / wavelength. There is no "range" in this equation. Energy is lost, in any model.


False. JWST spectroscopy has consistently shown galaxies at high redshift have lower metallicities than modern day galaxies, even accounting for their low mass. Most are about 1/10 solar abundances. Metallicity is one of the few diagnostics which does not depend on cosmology or distance, so this discrepancy is completely incompatible with tired light models. Some of the earliest galaxies are also massive relative to their age, but they would be dwarfs in the modern universe. GNz-11 for example was supprisingly bright when discovered and yet it's mass in stars is only 5x10^8 solar masses, pretty much the same as a little dwarf galaxy like the Small Magellanic Cloud.

(I don’t know how to isolate excepts from your reply to respond to individually so will just answer each of your points in one block)

Blondin et al did not compare to a z=0 model. Where exactly is this imaginary comparison in the paper?
Notice there are NO low redshift spectra to make comparisons to. Only the 13 or so higher redshift spectra. All Blondin has done is manufacture an imaginary series of restframe spectra conveniently falsified with endless fits and algorithms. There is no case by case comparison between real low redshift spectra and the high redshift samples presented in the paper. Just endless irrelevent charts showing how brilliant their imaginary fits are to an expanding models erroneous predictions. I did notice seperately that Blondins own homepage supplies hundreds of free to all spectra. I am tempted to download a few low redshift spectra and do the job HE should have done and made a proper comparison between a low redshift spectral series and the higher sample.

At least once the authors mention how a tired light model cannot fit the observed data. False claim and unverified as usual. Nor has any attempt been made by any of the authors to test whether or not their erroneous claims that the data only fits an expanding model

How do I know the data fits z=0?! How do you you know it doesn’t ? !!
Im always amazed at how the “established” physics community pretends their imaginary assumptions are actually empirically observed data.
( incidentally I have fits of z=0 that are as good if not better than Knop. Considering he arbitrarily adjusted HST data to fit an expanding model when the data didn’t fit initially.)

Re Photon energy. You conveniently forgot a bit of basic physics. Maybe 10nm is double energy as 20nm. But, 10-20 nm gets redshifted to *20-40 nm*. Thats DOUBLE the nm range in the redshifted range than emitted
You pretended 10nm got redshifted to 20 nm only, and did your erroneous calculation based on this imaginary scenario. Ignoring the fact that the redshifted range was double the wavelength range of emitted.
By the way,...the photon was invented by Einstein to make sure his relativity theories worked. And the reason why the BBT was invented was to save the photon model from being proven false by Hubbles observation that Alberts photon appeared to change frequency over distance. Light is not a photon. No one has ever observed one . Only assumed its existence to save relativity. BUT, light has been observed as a wave. Many times over centuries.

I see no evidence that these distant galaxies are less metal rich than local galaxies. That’s a false claim. Nor is there any definitive proof that these galaxies are different sizes (Ie smaller). How did this get calculated? It is only a fantasy made up by BBT theorists. Who conveniently forget that distant galaxies full sizes are not observable. (Notice small galaxies in Hubble deep field turned out much bigger in the subsequent hi res infrared JWST images). Not to mention ignoring extinction, heavily redshifted spectra distorting the evidence, and most of all ..no attempt to address distance size relationships in a non expanding universe. For instance in a non expanding model, distances are not calculated assuming expansion.
And finally it’s all very well you continually asking for evidence for a non expanding model. But you ignore the fact that pretty well every prediction made by the BBT, since the Catholic priest LeMaitre imposed the creation myth on astrophysics,....has been proved false with subsequent observations.
Yes your Gnz-11 is a good example of falsification of the data by BBT supporters. Your sources actually pretend that Gz is smaller than it is even though in fact it appears large in diameter. Because your sources say that with hi redshift in a expanding model even a galaxy our Milky Way size would have to appear to be absolutely massive in any JWST Deep field Image for some bizarre reason in BBT - land.
This is Nonsense of course because.....the non expanding model...ISNT expanding. Therefore your “ too small“ distant galaxies. Arent actually too small for a non expanding model.
 
Aug 6, 2020
13
8
4,515
Visit site
Blondin et al did not compare to a z=0 model. Where exactly is this imaginary comparison in the paper?
Notice there are NO low redshift spectra to make comparisons to. Only the 13 or so higher redshift spectra.

You apparently didn't look at the paper very well.

"Fig. 3 we show the age distribution of the SN Ia templates used in SNID for this paper (these do not include sub-
luminous SNe Ia). This database comprises 959 spectra of 79 low-redshift (z . 0.05) SNe Ia with ages between
−15 and +50 d from maximum light. "

At least once the authors mention how a tired light model cannot fit the observed data. False claim and unverified as usual. Nor has any attempt been made by any of the authors to test whether or not their erroneous claims that the data only fits an expanding model
The detection of time dilation following (1+z) is incompatible with tired light.

How do I know the data fits z=0?! How do you you know it doesn’t ? !!... incidentally I have fits of z=0 that are as good if not better than Knop.
Both Blondin et al. and Goldhaber et al. show differences in the timescales of near and far supernovae. If you have something quantitative to show then do so.

Re Photon energy. You conveniently forgot a bit of basic physics. Maybe 10nm is double energy as 20nm. But, 10-20 nm gets redshifted to *20-40 nm*.
There is no such thing as a 20-40nm photon. A photon has one wavelength.

I see no evidence that these distant galaxies are less metal rich than local galaxies. That’s a false claim. Nor is there any definitive proof that these galaxies are different sizes (Ie smaller). How did this get calculated?...
If only there was some sort of paper you could read. But there's no point because you've already dismissed everything that doesn't agree with your baseless claim. Why bring up metallicity and size if you're not prepared to look at observational estimates? Please point me to these JWST observations of metal rich z>8 galaxies?

Because your sources say that with hi redshift in a expanding model even a galaxy our Milky Way size
It's not much of a falsification if it is based on huge suppositions like this. In an expanding model galaxies evolve and grow in size.
 
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
You apparently didn't look at the paper very well.

"Fig. 3 we show the age distribution of the SN Ia templates used in SNID for this paper (these do not include sub-
luminous SNe Ia). This database comprises 959 spectra of 79 low-redshift (z . 0.05) SNe Ia with ages between
−15 and +50 d from maximum light. "

Exactly my point. Where is the comparison between hi and low redshift spectra. No where. Just a single histogram (fig3 ) telling us that so many hundreds of spectra *supposedly* prove there is time dilation. As if that shows us anything. I could whip up a similar graph and say it shows no time dilation.
Lets see facts and data like time dilated spectra to low redshift spectra comparisons. Anything else is unverified assumption.


Both Blondin et al. and Goldhaber et al. show differences in the timescales of near and far supernovae. If you have something quantitative to show then do so.

Notice they did not actually show any real evidence showing how a hi redshifted spectra fit or didn’t fit the low redshift spectra. So if Blondin, Goldhaber et al think they have evidence that the data does not fit a non expanding model, or does fit their preferred expanding model they should show their evidence. Not just pretend they have it by inserting a single simple uninformative spectra free graph. Evidence in a paper like This needs to be evidence of at least two observed spectra. One from hi redshift one from low redshift from the same day post peak which clear show NO fit. And,...Even then it would preferable if they compared and showed all 13 hi redshift spectra with 13 good clear low redshift control spectra.

You apparently didn't look at the paper very well.
The detection of time dilation following (1+z) is incompatible with tired light.

And no time dilation is compatible with a non expanding universe. As the data shows. A non dilated template fits all the data, which incidentally was a test never made by any of your pro BBT paper authors. If you think otherwise cite me a single SN1a from Knop...and I’ll give you the w and s factors for you to double check.



You apparently didn't look at the paper very well.
There is no such thing as a 20-40nm photon. A photon has one wavelength.

Fortunately I never said there was a 20-40 nm photon. You made that up. However the fact is that 10-20nm gets redshifted to twice the nm range of 20-40nm. That’s twice the measureable energy to compensate for 1/2 the energy due to 1/2 the f of the redshifted range





It's not much of a falsification if it is based on huge suppositions like this. In an expanding model galaxies evolve and grow in size.


Notice an expanding model.....isn’t a non expanding model.

And therefore fantastical assumptions about galaxies having to appear much bigger than the Milky Way in deep field imaging to somehow prove that they are the same size as the Milky Way is not applicable in a more logical fact based empirically verified non expanding model.
 
Aug 6, 2020
13
8
4,515
Visit site
Exactly my point. Where is the comparison between hi and low redshift spectra. No where ...
Notice they did not actually show any real evidence showing how a hi redshifted spectra fit or didn’t fit the low redshift spectra.

Fig 2 show she low z templates, fig 3 the high z templates. If you want to plot them together I suggest you download the data yourself.

So if Blondin, Goldhaber et al think they have evidence that the data does not fit a non expanding model, or does fit their preferred expanding model they should show their evidence.
They have, see fig 6 of Blondin and Fig 3 of Goldhaber. And for the record Goldhaber et al is not spectroscopic at all. They do show the low and high redshift composite light curve on the same plot. They are clearly different.

Fortunately I never said there was a 20-40 nm photon. You made that up. However the fact is that 10-20nm gets redshifted to twice the nm range of 20-40nm. That’s twice the measureable energy to compensate for 1/2 the energy due to 1/2 the f of the redshifted range
I did make it up, to demonstrate what you say is irreverent. Why don't you explain this mathematicaly, you have 10 photons propagating together. Their inital energy is simply 10xhc/lambda. The number of photons doesn't change, so the total energy decreases with redshift.
 
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
Visit site
Fig 2 show she low z templates, fig 3 the high z templates. If you want to plot them together I suggest you download the data yourself.

Figure 2 does not show any spectra from any Sn1a source. It is
a computer generated plot of an imaginary composite spectra
thst has been manipulated fitted faksified and adjusted to such
a degree that it bears little in common with any actual spectra.
Which is why Blondin did it. He knew if he compared real low
redshift spectra to any of his hi redshift samples..he would find
No fit to dilated models. Nor does it nor any other figure in the
paper even attempt to to try to compare an *undilated* version of
his imaginary low redshift spectra with any hi redshift spectra.
Thats called a control test in case you weren’t aware of the term.
Ie. Testing to see if a non expanding model fits the data.

They have, see fig 6 of Blondin and Fig 3 of Goldhaber. And for the record Goldhaber et al is not spectroscopic at all. They do show the low and high redshift composite light curve on the same plot. They are clearly different.

Good try, but...For the record I never said Goldhaber was spectroscopic.
And fig 3 Goldhaber does not show any SN1a lightcurve. Nor does it compare any dilated or un dilated lightcurves at all in fact. Try again.
And...Figure six in Blondin does not compare any spectra with any spectra. Can you see a SN spectra in fig 6?

I did make it up, to demonstrate what you say is irreverent. Why don't you explain this mathematicaly, you have 10 photons propagating together. Their inital energy is simply 10xhc/lambda. The number of photons doesn't change, so the total energy decreases with redshift.

You can also do it mathematically like this. You have 10-20nm light of energy E. Which is then redshifted over distance to 20-40nm. The wavelength of the redshifted light range gives you 1/2 E. But the range of the redshifted light is twice that of the non redshifted range. Giving you 2*(1/2E)= E
You have the same total energy in the redshifted light as that of the emitted
light. The mistake you made was to pretend light isn’t a wave.
 

TRENDING THREADS