Scopes see closer to the Horizon, then may suddenly go negative at, in, beyond, the Horizon???

[Atlan0001]

I wonder what is going to go through the community of cosmology when the Webb, or some other even more powerful scope, that has already discovered galaxies +350 million years to the Horizon of the Big Bang, discovers those more or less mature galaxies that are +100 million years, then +10 million years, then -10 million years, then -100 million years, then -350 million years, and maturity even farther into a negative, to the same Horizon of Planck Big Bang (Black) Hole (collapsed constant)???

Now I'm going to wait for someone to see and realize what it might be . . . then try to tell me something I've already told, I've already said, over and over again (a try to describe a picture of Horizon constancy, of 'Mirror' and 'Mirroring', in and to that Horizon, I've already described many times).

 

[billslugg]

We can only see visually back to recombination, at 380,000 years post Big Bang. Prior to that would be like being inside a fire. Nothing but smooth light in every direction. Every photon scatters millions of times each second, constantly sharing momentum with the elementary particles they bounce off of. They are also constantly being re-emitted at slightly different energies. Thus all narrow absorption and emission lines are smoothed out. CMBR is the smoothest, most perfect black body spectrum ever measured.
That so many galaxies and SMBH's formed so early is a fact. That no model is able to explain it will be fixed with time. Soon we will figure out if the "hydrogen clumping speed" people are wrong or the "how long does a given size pure hydrogen star last"people will be wrong or if both are wrong. And who was more wrong?. There are sure to be hard feelings over this one.
And yes, as we look back closer and closer to year 380,000, the modellers will again and again be forced to fight in the streets.

 

[Atlan0001]

That so many galaxies once upon a time formed so early once upon a time is [no] fact at all. No once in forever, or just once in a 1-dimenional line-string of cycling, fact! That so many galaxies, and so many other entities, have always formed so early; are always forming so early, and will always form so early, in level of a current and concurrent multiverse of levels, universes to infinity and eternity horizontal and vertical, I state in dispute is a fact! Despite what some people think and would have us believe to the exclusion of anything else -- as being, to them, impossible because we aren't supposed to dispute their premises for their structures built over their [indisputable] premises (built indisputably upon distant mirage sands, that is to say solely here in light and not at all actually distant either in space or time), there is no such thing as closed systems without concurrent open systems. There is no such thing as one world without concurrent many worlds. No such thing as one dimension without many, nor one universe without many. There is no such thing as unity without division, concurrent! And just because they are unobserved in that observed universe at / in scopes -- are unobservable (inertialessly 'fast') universe within and without that observable (inertially 'slow') universe -- does not means they do not exist, period! I say, because there are two or more sides, two or more levels, it means they, the unobserved and unobservable -- more or less ['inertialess'] -- universes must exist and probably do, too, right under the noses of those who continuously without letup naysay the unobserved and unobservable universe, universes, and physics there of! They don't have to be seen to be believed (to be realized). Doctrinaire mediocrity, stone 1-dimensional thinking throughout history and without doubt throughout the future, has been and will always be fought in the streets.

There will always be many coins more than one, even if all of them of a certain type are single-sided 2-dimensional coins (frames) without any rear, any backside, to them to run up, to run down. Only the stereotype, the archetype -- such as my PBB(B)H (collapsed constant) Horizon, aka my Infinite Multiverse Universe Horizon ('Aice In Wonderland', 'Through the Looking Glass' (into the 'Mirror's Window)), an ['inertialess'] Quantum Mechanics-like picture raised to the macro-macro-cosmic from the micro-micro-cosmic and being the 'beyond relativity' both ways) -- will ever be singular as far I'm concerned . . . and probably a few others of mankind, just a few others, to boot, willing to dispute a 1-dimensional universe only . . . willing to dispute an imposition of (a naked singularity of) observed / observable ['inertial'] universe "conventional wisdom" picture only!

 

[Atlan0001]

I added three physics and descriptives (that belong) to the above post #3 that deepen and, I hope, clarify more the picture I'm presenting.