Okay, so surprisingly I made it through your little blog thing, (hopefully you're not intending for this to be respected as some form of scientific journal).
Given the topic, the immature and underdeveloped verbiage you use (like a pouty highschool kid ranting on social media), all-the-while attempting to divert attention from your arrogant intellectual misgivings behind a phony veil of being a humble "layman" almost immediately voids any hope for someone in the scientific community to listen to your opinion. (and fortunately for the scientific community, you are not a part of) So I have to ask, who exactly is your "audience"? Certainly, as a self-described "layman", your intent is not to display this opinion piece to other laymen as any source of reputable academic viewpoint, as that would be as equally charlatan as the cosmologists (who have more education, experience and knowledge of the topic) that you attempted to character assassinate. This is the type of nonsensical opinion piece I usually see from creationists (who as I'm sure you're aware have zero scientific evidence or observation for anything, yet still try to die on the hill of truth.)
Yeah...I just compared you to a creationist.
All you've done here is expose the fact that you do not understand that science is a learning experience. That we can only extrapolate "what's in the next room" based on the information we have at any given moment, until we find the key that opens that next door. Things like the JWSP are these keys. Another one of those keys was the Hubble Telescope, where before we possessed it, we didn't know about objects like exoplanets, and that on average, every star we can observe has at least one planet orbiting around it. We had no known instances of planets orbiting around stars other than our own Sun. We had no idea about dark matter. We didn't even know if black holes were real or not! And thanks to another key called the Kepler Telescope, that about one out of ever four SOL-like stars have at least one earth-like planet orbiting in that star's habitable zone, increasing the potential for alien life to degrees that no one before the 1950s could even begin to articulate. As for z8-GND-5296 (the galaxy which you are referring to), perhaps something in the deep-field region of the GOODS-South field (which contains over 15 galaxies) that is forming stars so quickly that the number of stars inside will double in about 10 million years (just 0.1% the lifespan of the universe) could help shed light on this? Time will tell.
Just because we've discovered something new that changes our knowledge base, doesn't mean that you've proven that the men and women who discovered it (notice how i didn't include you in this group?) are charlatans. What it (and this "article") proves is that you are the square peg attempting to fit in the round hole. You should probably just "stay in your lane" in the future.
Fully mature, garden variety spiral galaxies where the Big Bang 'Dark Ages' was supposed to be, and the proponents of this now ridiculous theory are still referring to these as 'young galaxies'.
I shall indeed 'stay in my lane'. It is a new lane based on observation.
Feel free to continue rolling along in the Big Bang lane, as it slowly devolves into a far flung hypothesis and eventually becomes the purview of cultists and astrologers.
Absolutely hilarious 🤣🤣. I always see this. We are the authorities! When it's pointed out it's all guess work and fudging then it's, "science is a learning process". Be less arrogant and sure about what you don't know then. That's the point of the article. Stop gate keeping ideas when your own central theory is clearly not fit for purpose. This is the point of the article not that science is bad (of course there are bad, evil, greedy, shady, capitalistic scientists as in every thing else)
I do not purport to have a 'theory'. I am merely pointing out the observation, which is a subtle differentiation from the art of interpretation, which so many Big Bang proponents are so enamored by.
Where is the 'Dark Ages' of which they speak? As per the James Webb Space Telescope, what are all those garden variety spiral galaxies with 2nd generation stars - over a billion years old - doing in an epoch a few hundred million years from a supposed Big Bang?
The microwave background likened to '...the fog of distance.' An interesting idea.
Your remark that electromagnetism and optical redshift are two different disciplines escapes me. I see them both as features of the same theory.
Then there's this: '...redshift only determines distance not evolution or expansion...'
If these objects are not moving away from us, then how do you account for the redshift? There is the idea that gravitational forces of these objects - or nearby objects - are responsible for the observed spectral shifts. Perhaps you can account for it.
The fact is that no one knows what happened to set off the Big Bang. More than likely the theory is the swiss cheese of cosmology. It is in fact a reason why JW was deployed in the first place, to test our understanding. I don't understand how some people can get so emotionally wrapped up around a scientific theory. A galaxy 700 million years from the Big Bang, IMHO, represents an opportunity to reevaluate what we think we know, as well as what we think we're actually observing. Is this galaxy really what we think it is? Could JW have a calibration issue? This is the stuff of real scientific investigation, it should be welcomed and eagerly pursued - rip into it and question everything!
'These cosmos bottom feeders snicker with contempt at what they deem an ignorant gullible public that they attempt to dupe, peddling their wares for profit.'
Precisely *who* are these charlatans that engage in duping a gullible public with the Big Bang? I know of a lot of Flat Earth and Electric Universe types who engage in bilking the Great Unwashed, but really - there's $$$ to be made promoting the Big Bang? Where do I sign?
According to the JWST deep field images, this epoc does not exist, instead it is populated by garden variety galaxies, too close to the Big Bang to have had enough time to develop.
The 'Dark Ages' was a vital prediction, based on the interpretation that cosmic redshift denoted the age of the Universe, from present day back to a primordial beginning.
So where is this primordial beginning? Where are the facts - not interpretations - to back up such a theory?
JWST deep field observations would seem to suggest that what we are seeing are galaxies similar those of our own local galactic neighborhood.
Good question. Perhaps there wasn't a 'Dark Ages.'
There's the idea that physical 'constants' were different in the very early Universe, perhaps that has some bearing on the observation. I'm not an astrophysicist, I don't have that insight, and I'm not about to pretend I know any of the answers.
Keep in mind these are early days in astrophysics. We're only now learning what questions to ask. Sure, we've been staring up at the sky for centuries and our tools have been getting better by leaps and bounds, but we're only just now starting to get to the real meat and potatoes of what's happened/happening out there.
Where are the facts? You know the facts. You don't like the current interpretation of the of background radiation and doppler shift observations and that's perfectly ok. As I said before, the current thinking is probably wrong. The JWST will provide a ton more information that will have physicists scratching their heads for decades. We may learn new physics along the way.
I'm not all that concerned that the Big Bang theory is right or wrong as we don't know much about the Universe yet. At some point we'll either make adjustment to the theory to account for new discoveries or we'll toss it out entirely in favor of a theory that fits all our observations.
[physical 'constants' were different in the very early Universe]
If what we are seeing is an 'early universe' then we might likely have to delve into complex interpretations to define these constants.
However, if what we are seeing is what an observer would see if they looked out from their distant galaxies towards ours: Distant (NOT primordial!) galaxies at the edge of an event horizon, the furthest distance that galaxies can be seen with a backdrop of an ever thickening haze of hydrogen fog.
If this is the case, then there is no need for tampering with hypothetical constants.
Personally, based on what the JWST is showing us, I'd be in favor of using Occam's Razor.
Right! I've been teaching Astronomy (and a survey of cosmology) for 20+ years at a public community college and had no idea I was missing a profitable opportunity. I can bear the cross of being a bottom-feeder or ignorant charlatan if I've got a sweet, sweet check to cash!
Okay, so surprisingly I made it through your little blog thing, (hopefully you're not intending for this to be respected as some form of scientific journal).
Given the topic, the immature and underdeveloped verbiage you use (like a pouty highschool kid ranting on social media), all-the-while attempting to divert attention from your arrogant intellectual misgivings behind a phony veil of being a humble "layman" almost immediately voids any hope for someone in the scientific community to listen to your opinion. (and fortunately for the scientific community, you are not a part of) So I have to ask, who exactly is your "audience"? Certainly, as a self-described "layman", your intent is not to display this opinion piece to other laymen as any source of reputable academic viewpoint, as that would be as equally charlatan as the cosmologists (who have more education, experience and knowledge of the topic) that you attempted to character assassinate. This is the type of nonsensical opinion piece I usually see from creationists (who as I'm sure you're aware have zero scientific evidence or observation for anything, yet still try to die on the hill of truth.)
Yeah...I just compared you to a creationist.
All you've done here is expose the fact that you do not understand that science is a learning experience. That we can only extrapolate "what's in the next room" based on the information we have at any given moment, until we find the key that opens that next door. Things like the JWSP are these keys. Another one of those keys was the Hubble Telescope, where before we possessed it, we didn't know about objects like exoplanets, and that on average, every star we can observe has at least one planet orbiting around it. We had no known instances of planets orbiting around stars other than our own Sun. We had no idea about dark matter. We didn't even know if black holes were real or not! And thanks to another key called the Kepler Telescope, that about one out of ever four SOL-like stars have at least one earth-like planet orbiting in that star's habitable zone, increasing the potential for alien life to degrees that no one before the 1950s could even begin to articulate. As for z8-GND-5296 (the galaxy which you are referring to), perhaps something in the deep-field region of the GOODS-South field (which contains over 15 galaxies) that is forming stars so quickly that the number of stars inside will double in about 10 million years (just 0.1% the lifespan of the universe) could help shed light on this? Time will tell.
Just because we've discovered something new that changes our knowledge base, doesn't mean that you've proven that the men and women who discovered it (notice how i didn't include you in this group?) are charlatans. What it (and this "article") proves is that you are the square peg attempting to fit in the round hole. You should probably just "stay in your lane" in the future.
Fully mature, garden variety spiral galaxies where the Big Bang 'Dark Ages' was supposed to be, and the proponents of this now ridiculous theory are still referring to these as 'young galaxies'.
I shall indeed 'stay in my lane'. It is a new lane based on observation.
Feel free to continue rolling along in the Big Bang lane, as it slowly devolves into a far flung hypothesis and eventually becomes the purview of cultists and astrologers.
https://youtu.be/YHO-ibr5YS4
Absolutely hilarious 🤣🤣. I always see this. We are the authorities! When it's pointed out it's all guess work and fudging then it's, "science is a learning process". Be less arrogant and sure about what you don't know then. That's the point of the article. Stop gate keeping ideas when your own central theory is clearly not fit for purpose. This is the point of the article not that science is bad (of course there are bad, evil, greedy, shady, capitalistic scientists as in every thing else)
I do not purport to have a 'theory'. I am merely pointing out the observation, which is a subtle differentiation from the art of interpretation, which so many Big Bang proponents are so enamored by.
Where is the 'Dark Ages' of which they speak? As per the James Webb Space Telescope, what are all those garden variety spiral galaxies with 2nd generation stars - over a billion years old - doing in an epoch a few hundred million years from a supposed Big Bang?
https://youtu.be/YHO-ibr5YS4
The microwave background likened to '...the fog of distance.' An interesting idea.
Your remark that electromagnetism and optical redshift are two different disciplines escapes me. I see them both as features of the same theory.
Then there's this: '...redshift only determines distance not evolution or expansion...'
If these objects are not moving away from us, then how do you account for the redshift? There is the idea that gravitational forces of these objects - or nearby objects - are responsible for the observed spectral shifts. Perhaps you can account for it.
The fact is that no one knows what happened to set off the Big Bang. More than likely the theory is the swiss cheese of cosmology. It is in fact a reason why JW was deployed in the first place, to test our understanding. I don't understand how some people can get so emotionally wrapped up around a scientific theory. A galaxy 700 million years from the Big Bang, IMHO, represents an opportunity to reevaluate what we think we know, as well as what we think we're actually observing. Is this galaxy really what we think it is? Could JW have a calibration issue? This is the stuff of real scientific investigation, it should be welcomed and eagerly pursued - rip into it and question everything!
'These cosmos bottom feeders snicker with contempt at what they deem an ignorant gullible public that they attempt to dupe, peddling their wares for profit.'
Precisely *who* are these charlatans that engage in duping a gullible public with the Big Bang? I know of a lot of Flat Earth and Electric Universe types who engage in bilking the Great Unwashed, but really - there's $$$ to be made promoting the Big Bang? Where do I sign?
Hi Craig, thanks for your reply.
My question is a simple one.
Where is the predicted 'Dark Ages'?
According to the JWST deep field images, this epoc does not exist, instead it is populated by garden variety galaxies, too close to the Big Bang to have had enough time to develop.
The 'Dark Ages' was a vital prediction, based on the interpretation that cosmic redshift denoted the age of the Universe, from present day back to a primordial beginning.
So where is this primordial beginning? Where are the facts - not interpretations - to back up such a theory?
JWST deep field observations would seem to suggest that what we are seeing are galaxies similar those of our own local galactic neighborhood.
Good question. Perhaps there wasn't a 'Dark Ages.'
There's the idea that physical 'constants' were different in the very early Universe, perhaps that has some bearing on the observation. I'm not an astrophysicist, I don't have that insight, and I'm not about to pretend I know any of the answers.
Keep in mind these are early days in astrophysics. We're only now learning what questions to ask. Sure, we've been staring up at the sky for centuries and our tools have been getting better by leaps and bounds, but we're only just now starting to get to the real meat and potatoes of what's happened/happening out there.
Where are the facts? You know the facts. You don't like the current interpretation of the of background radiation and doppler shift observations and that's perfectly ok. As I said before, the current thinking is probably wrong. The JWST will provide a ton more information that will have physicists scratching their heads for decades. We may learn new physics along the way.
I'm not all that concerned that the Big Bang theory is right or wrong as we don't know much about the Universe yet. At some point we'll either make adjustment to the theory to account for new discoveries or we'll toss it out entirely in favor of a theory that fits all our observations.
[physical 'constants' were different in the very early Universe]
If what we are seeing is an 'early universe' then we might likely have to delve into complex interpretations to define these constants.
However, if what we are seeing is what an observer would see if they looked out from their distant galaxies towards ours: Distant (NOT primordial!) galaxies at the edge of an event horizon, the furthest distance that galaxies can be seen with a backdrop of an ever thickening haze of hydrogen fog.
If this is the case, then there is no need for tampering with hypothetical constants.
Personally, based on what the JWST is showing us, I'd be in favor of using Occam's Razor.
Right! I've been teaching Astronomy (and a survey of cosmology) for 20+ years at a public community college and had no idea I was missing a profitable opportunity. I can bear the cross of being a bottom-feeder or ignorant charlatan if I've got a sweet, sweet check to cash!
Hi Ted,
Well you just haven't produced enough Big Bang books to hoist onto a gullible public. Get to work! :-)