The James Webb Space Telescope discovers enormous distant galaxies that should not exist

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Yes, interesting times. But not time to settle on any conclusions, while others are still disputing analyses.

Consideering how far away the things of greatest importance for new theory are, it would not surprise me if they ar not getting the details right the first (second, third, fourth . . ?) time.
 
The largest, most massive, densest, black hole in our local universe is our local universe itself. Continuously accelerate in it long enough and you will warp its vertical flexible Abyss of space-time, stars, galaxies, dust, eventually simply vacuum debris, in on you, and possibly pop out of its horizon and jet into some other universe's stars, galaxies, and so on, being surprised you've hardly begun to accelerate. Black hole type mass density in one dimension is a universe of vacuum (possibly negative in speed (decelerating to possibly (-)300,000kps relative to you sitting at a stop sign on Earth), possibly loaded with negative energy) in another dimension. There are already articles out there talking, and experiments being performed, drawing some slight energy from the nothing of a void or vacuum.
 
Last edited:
Mar 1, 2023
2
0
10
Could our age calculation of the universe be off, and we are seeing the other side of the BB origin?
 
Could our age calculation of the universe be off, and we are seeing the other side of the BB origin?
Yeah, sorta. Problem is "you can't get there from here". To do so would be to pass through a singularity and there is no physics to describe it. Prior to 10^-43 seconds particle wavelength becomes smaller than mean free path thus particles cannot communicate thus heat cannot flow, time cannot occur.

Perhaps the Universe will collapse to a singularity and bounce back. This could be the millionth time the universe has existed, just don't know and can never know.

All information is lost in going through a singularity. It has but one dimension, a point. It can store but one bit at a a time, "on" = 1, "off" = 0. Thus we could never have any information about another universe. That's what makes them so unique. If we did know about them then they are part of our universe.
 
Last edited:
Could our age calculation of the universe be off, and we are seeing the other side of the BB origin?
There is no "age calculation" of the universe that means anything, the observation of those "enormous distant galaxies that should not exist" proves. What it may mean though is that the Big Bang Horizon (I call the 'Big Bang / Planck / Infinity Horizon') is the forever continuing steady state "emergent" condition of universe that the rest of our universe, ever cycling and recycling from that [never anything but distant horizon to the other side of the "life zone"] continuing constant of Horizon to any and all [coming and going] infinities of black hole horizons [at the opposite end of the "life zone"], Horizon (H) to horizon (h) and re-turn ("turn": "verse"), isn't!

In order to envision what I'm talking about, though, you have to be able to envision a multi-dimensional, multi-level multiplex of Multiverse-Universe. Flat universe horizontally infinite in universes (loaded to infinity with those "enormous distant galaxies that should not exist" at / in / through every 'point' of the distant horizon), multileveled vertically -- as described in Chaos Theory's "zoom" (zoom out/ zoom in) -- to infinity (as I see and describe in 'The Largest Black Hole' here in forum 'Cosmology').

So, again, there is no "age calculation" of [the universe / the infinity of universes] that means anything between a steady state constant condition (H) in one dimension, and a forever cycling / recycling condition (h) in another dimension. Two ((H) (h))! eternally linked in the "turn" / the "verse".

Infinity can never be observed as such. It collapses into a constant of non-local "horizon", and into purpose from being Infinity's constant of horizon as well. The "speed of light" constant (+/- 'c') is one identical constant of non-local collapsed "horizon".
 
Last edited:
You are ascribing more significance to the recent observations than warranted. These giant galaxies don't disprove their timing. The timing is accurate. What has scientists confused over is: which of the disciplines currently is under suspicion of having some "bad equations". Remember the rate at which stars were born early on is under great scrutiny. We are finding rates 1,000 times larger than now. Be off just a tiny bit in that estimate and the implications are profound. There are two battling factions right now 1) Those who estimate rates of hydrogen cloud heat dissipation and collapse, and those who estimate the rate at which fusion occurs. This all happens in clouds of hydrogen of high purity as compared to today. We have nothing compare to in today's sky. Can't be duplicated in the lab. No one can solve the equations. Very little data upon which to develop a good model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: murgatroyd
Mar 2, 2023
2
1
15
It looks like the galaxies in the accompanying image all subtend 8 pixels or less. And I've read that the Webb can focus out to .1 arcseconds per pixel, so I assume that would mean these galaxies span roughly .8 arcseconds. And running the expansion of space backwards, a Z value of, say, 8 would have put them around 3.3 Gly away from our region of space back when the light we see now left them. But projecting an angle of .8 arcseconds out 3.3 Gly, I get a diameter of only around 13,000 light years.

13,000 light years galactic diameter is "enormous"? What am I missing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rod
It looks like the galaxies in the accompanying image all subtend 8 pixels or less. And I've read that the Webb can focus out to .1 arcseconds per pixel, so I assume that would mean these galaxies span roughly .8 arcseconds. And running the expansion of space backwards, a Z value of, say, 8 would have put them around 3.3 Gly away from our region of space back when the light we see now left them. But projecting an angle of .8 arcseconds out 3.3 Gly, I get a diameter of only around 13,000 light years.

13,000 light years galactic diameter is "enormous"? What am I missing?
Interesting. 1 arcsecond at 10^9 pc is a bit larger than 15800 LY diameter. So far, I have not seen a report showing redshift mapped to angular sizes (and thus diameters) for various remote, and early galaxies as presently interpreted within the BB model framework.
 
Mar 1, 2023
2
0
10
My thought on this is about the cone of expansion of the universe since BB. The distance across the universe is greater than the time BB happened, this would also help with the accelerating expansion problem, think of how a trumpet horn is shaped. We are looking across distance to a galaxy that is the same age as ours just the distance of x billion light years gives it the monster red shift. This also brings another paradox, when we get to where the cone expansion gets to the speed of light.
 
Mar 2, 2023
2
1
15
Interesting. 1 arcsecond at 10^9 pc is a bit larger than 15800 LY diameter. So far, I have not seen a report showing redshift mapped to angular sizes (and thus diameters) for various remote, and early galaxies as presently interpreted within the BB model framework.

Long ago, this was one of the most distinctive predictions of BB cosmology--that the angular diameter of a succession of equal-sized galaxies would shrink with increasing distance at first, then the shrinkage would stop, then they would appear larger and larger the further back in time we looked--if only we had a telescope that was powerful enough to magnify that much. Then this prediction quietly disappeared after the Hubble Deep Field image came out. According to BB cosmology, what we are seeing in the various deep field images is NOT a spread of galaxies so distant that they have been reduced to specks (as the article here suggests) but a great number of tiny galaxies not so far away. According to BB theory, the maximum distance any photon we can see today could ever have been from our location given current estimates of expansion is 5.75 Gly. So any shrinkage in apparent galactic size further back than redshift Z=1.65 is not due to greater emission distances, but is due to galactic shrinkage which just happens to be the right amount to create the illusion of increasing emission distance--perfectly masking the reverse expansion of space as we look further back in time.

Sounds plausible, right? But my reaction is the same as yours. It's interesting that this is not reported or discussed any more. It's an integral part of BB cosmology, so why did all talk of it disappear after Hubble?
 
Mar 2, 2023
1
0
10
An alternative model of the universe provided for your consideration below.

The Shell Model of the Universe: A Universe Generated from Multiple Big Bangs (https://www.researchgate.net/public..._A_Universe_Generated_from_Multiple_Big_Bangs)

Abstract
The Current Standard Model of the Universe asserts that the universe is generated from a single Big Bang event followed by inflation. There is no center to this universe, hence, no preferential reference frame to describe the motions of celestial objects. We propose a new, Shell Model of the Universe, which contends that the universe is created from multiple, concentric big bangs. Accordingly , that origin presents itself as a unique, preferential reference frame, which furnishes the simplest description of the motions of galaxies in the cosmos. This is similar in manner to how planetary motion is more straightforwardly described via a sun-centered Solar System rather than an earth-centered one. The appeal of the Shell Model of the Universe lies in its simplistic ability to resolve the paradox of quasars, explain the variability in Hubble's Constant, and solve the problematic accelerated expansion of the universe.
 
Sep 11, 2020
96
30
4,560
Dark matter is part of the QL(Quark/Lepton) soup in which there is a bubble of space time.

Two universe cosmological model
https://phys.org/news/2022-05-bilayer-graphene-two-universe-cosmological.html

When the spacetime bubble first formed baryonic matter precipitated out of the QL soup. We are in that soup and haven’t yet figured out how to see it.
Picture a clear cloudless sky that in almost no time is filled with puffy white clouds. This is how I believe the spacetime bubble we are in was formed.This would have happened where inflation was assumed to end. As spacetime cooled the gaseous dark matter cooled. When it reached the temperature at which dark matter condenses the collapsing dark matter gravitationally pulls the baryonic matter with it into denser clouds forming the cosmic web this inspiralling condensing material also supplies a lot of the kinetic energy required to establish galaxies.
The rapidly forming clouds collapsed into black holes of all sizes and huge stars depending how much baryonic matter pulled into that area by the condensing dark matter.
once stars and galaxies form dark matter begins to vaporize and the ratio of liquid dark matter to gaseous dark matter begins to drop at different rates everywhere.
 
Mar 4, 2023
1
0
10
The cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation theory known as the big bang will fade into history like the flat Earth geocentric theory and give way to an infinite universe theory.
The cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation theory known as the big bang will fade into history like the flat Earth geocentric theory and give way to an infinite universe theory.

Infinite Universe is easier to wrap my head around compared to big bang theory which I have always had a hard time wrapping my head around. Where it began? Who knows, its either a Matrix style control room or a locker in a alien train station like MIB 2. Point being, as much as we think we "know" it seems like the less we know. This telescope has been contradicting a lot of what we thought we knew.
 
Infinite Universe is easier to wrap my head around compared to big bang theory which I have always had a hard time wrapping my head around. Where it began? Who knows, its either a Matrix style control room or a locker in a alien train station like MIB 2. Point being, as much as we think we "know" it seems like the less we know. This telescope has been contradicting a lot of what we thought we knew.
As I've said an infinity of times, infinity is impossible to observe, thus it will collapse into always non-local Horizon ([Big Bang / Planck / Infinity] Horizon). That 'Horizon' of a non-local infinity (plus) will allotropically metamorphosize (sic) into dimensions of so-called "white hole" (Big Bang / Planck) purpose balancing the infinity of black hole horizons that is its other end (to the other side of Hawking's "life zones" (spokes linking rim to hub -- horizon and horizon, end and end, an entanglement likening to -- or being -- quantum entanglement not mattering which is which end . . . both singularly diametrically opposite in the 'turn' turning, the 'verse' versing, the circle circling, to Hawking's "life zone")) bracketing the universe . . . bracketing the observable universe horizons of the Multiverse's infinities of universes.
 
Last edited:
The traveler will always outrun the speed of light to an observer, stretching out (slowing down in the observed time of light born images (become nothing but a 'history' point in a triangulation of three points, two real, two virtuals (sic), one virtual history point (-) for each futuristic (+), 0-point, real)), the distance between 0-point real space-time traveler and 0-point real space-time observer.

The observed run, the observed stretch, of three points, both back and forth, is in-line. The triangulation of the same three points, though, is angular and curving, one angle line curving to future (+); one angle line, say curving to 90-degree right angle, to past (-). The third angle-line between 0-point reals / concurrent 'dark' futures (+) in space-time, I would identify as future histories (+), are always unobservable concurrent 0-point now (quantum entangled-like 0-point space-time reality)! Both the 90-degree angle lines (to future (+)) and (to past (-)) always exactly equal in length due to the constancy of the speed of light (the constancy of 'c'). Both flexibly capable of increasing in expansion of triangulation and flexibly capable of decreasing in triangulation (flexibly capable of shift change).

Did you notice the word and physic "curve"? I could just as easily have used "spiral" / "spiraling". There are straight -- rather ever straighter -- path lines in space-time but they are more or less called "wormholes" to future (+) point 0-point arrival positions in space-time rather than ever straighter, ever more "leading", path lines. Accelerating, powering, or simply traveling, ever faster into ever tightening light-time history curves throws the traveler out of the best, straightest, path line to a destination space-time future (+) 0-point.

Observers will always observe into space-time light-time history curvatures, at least one curvature to many more curvatures than one. [Knowing travelers] would not travel into a space-time light-time curvature. At least not more than once, and probably not once, not even traveling our solar system (not even in skeet shooting on Earth: Not ever, if not ignorant of navigation, meaning not "leading" a moving object). Why chase reality from the rear, from a long chase to possibly forever, in space-time if you can more or less "cut the curve (the curvature / the 'spiral' in space-time)" and get out front and meet the 0-point real having come to you at the best possible [combined] future (+) 0-point crossroad meeting point?
 
Last edited:
Mar 9, 2023
4
5
15
Greetings,

This phenomenon may have happened in two ways:
A) The discovered galaxy could be real
B) The discovered galaxy could be virtual

A) The discovered galaxy could be real:
The first stage of forming a galaxy is the formation of a black hole. After that, other celestial objects revolve around it. The Discovery of a large galaxy indicates the existence of a large black hole at its center. However, all we know is that after the death, a large enough star can turn into a black hole with high density. This is because there is enough pressure and energy wothin the star to produce a black hole.
On the other hand, the initial sphere of the universe at the Big Bang was extremely dense, with about 10^42 (Kg/m^3) density, and an extremely high energy. When a large star dies, it can produce a black hole, and the initial sphere of the universe at the Big Bang had a much higher pressure and energy level, which undoubtedly can produce a larger black hole than the death of a star. So, the central black hole of this galaxy could be formed at the moment of the Big Bang. Moreover, since this black hole is an initial black hole, there was enough time for the growth and formation of a large galaxy.

B) The discovered galaxy could be virtual: As we know, the existence of velocity causes a shift in frequency or the same redshift and blueshift. Therefore the amount of shift in frequency is dependent on velocity. On the other hand, according to Hubble's law, a greater distance means a higher velocity. Considering the distance of this galaxy, its velocity will be so high. Therefore, the frequency shift of this galaxy is so high and causes a shift from range of visible light frequencies to radio waves, X-rays, or vice versa (which we call high-shift and low-shift). This galaxy could be virtual, meaning that the phenomenon of high-shift or low-shift may have had an effect on it and caused the creation of a celestial mirage.

The details of the both A and B have been published.

At the end, we must say that the best way to prevent such ambiguities is to build telescopes whose sensors operate based on wavelength rather than frequency.


With best regards,
Gh. Saleh
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Kold
Mar 9, 2023
4
5
15
Greetings,

This phenomenon may have happened in two ways:
A) The discovered galaxy could be real
B) The discovered galaxy could be virtual

A) The discovered galaxy could be real:
The first stage of forming a galaxy is the formation of a black hole. After that, other celestial objects revolve around it. The Discovery of a large galaxy indicates the existence of a large black hole at its center. However, all we know is that after the death, a large enough star can turn into a black hole with high density. This is because there is enough pressure and energy wothin the star to produce a black hole.
On the other hand, the initial sphere of the universe at the Big Bang was extremely dense, with about 10^42 (Kg/m^3) density, and an extremely high energy. When a large star dies, it can produce a black hole, and the initial sphere of the universe at the Big Bang had a much higher pressure and energy level, which undoubtedly can produce a larger black hole than the death of a star. So, the central black hole of this galaxy could be formed at the moment of the Big Bang. Moreover, since this black hole is an initial black hole, there was enough time for the growth and formation of a large galaxy.

B) The discovered galaxy could be virtual: As we know, the existence of velocity causes a shift in frequency or the same redshift and blueshift. Therefore the amount of shift in frequency is dependent on velocity. On the other hand, according to Hubble's law, a greater distance means a higher velocity. Considering the distance of this galaxy, its velocity will be so high. Therefore, the frequency shift of this galaxy is so high and causes a shift from range of visible light frequencies to radio waves, X-rays, or vice versa (which we call high-shift and low-shift). This galaxy could be virtual, meaning that the phenomenon of high-shift or low-shift may have had an effect on it and caused the creation of a celestial mirage.

The details of the both A and B have been published.

At the end, we must say that the best way to prevent such ambiguities is to build telescopes whose sensors operate based on wavelength rather than frequency.
More information: www.saleh-theory.com.

With best regards,
Gh. Saleh

C) The final and complete answer: Based on the properties of this galaxy, it could be a real galaxy, but the effect of blueshift and highshift or the effect of redshift and lowshift can be imagined on it. In fact it can be said that the captured image is a combination of real and virtual.
 
May 3, 2020
59
11
4,535
The cosmic egg exploding at the moment of creation theory known as the big bang will fade into history like the flat Earth geocentric theory and give way to an infinite universe theory.

A priest and a theoretical physicist arguing about cosmology:

Priest: In the beginning there was nothing. Then in a brilliant flash of light the universe was created
Physicist: No No No, Wrong! In the beginning there was nothing. Then in a brilliant flash of light the universe was created.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
Mar 9, 2023
4
5
15
C) The final and complete answer: Based on the properties of this galaxy, it could be a real galaxy, but the effect of blueshift and highshift or the effect of redshift and lowshift can be imagined on it. In fact it can be said that the captured image is a combination of real and virtual.
An example for explaining mode C:
Considering that the galaxy is real, due to the phenomenon of celestial mirages (which occur due to the high speed of the galaxy relative to us and causes a change in the received frequency from the galaxy, resulting in the phenomenon of high shift/blue shift or low shift/red shift), we observe it in a different location. For example, we should observe Mars in its actual location, but due to celestial mirages, we observe it in the location of Venus. Or by thinking that we observe Mars, but due to the error of the above phenomena, we actually observe Saturn.
In general, it can be said that the actual position of the galaxy according to logical and scientific calculations is correct, but due to celestial mirages, changes in location and color occur when observing it. The galaxy may be farther away, and we see it closer or farther and may be on the right side, but it appears on the left side.

In fact, it can be said that just as we have light refraction on the surface of the water, celestial mirages also can shift the image.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Kold
Mar 9, 2023
4
5
15
An example for explaining mode C:
Considering that the galaxy is real, due to the phenomenon of celestial mirages (which occur due to the high speed of the galaxy relative to us and causes a change in the received frequency from the galaxy, resulting in the phenomenon of high shift/blue shift or low shift/red shift), we observe it in a different location. For example, we should observe Mars in its actual location, but due to celestial mirages, we observe it in the location of Venus. Or by thinking that we observe Mars, but due to the error of the above phenomena, we actually observe Saturn.
In general, it can be said that the actual position of the galaxy according to logical and scientific calculations is correct, but due to celestial mirages, changes in location and color occur when observing it. The galaxy may be farther away, and we see it closer or farther and may be on the right side, but it appears on the left side.

In fact, it can be said that just as we have light refraction on the surface of the water, celestial mirages also can shift the image.
Hint:

What is the solution?

Using telescopes that work based on the wavelength of waves, since the wavelength always has a constant value.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Kold

Latest posts