Hi

CNN:
The discovery is completely upending existing theories about the
origins of galaxies, according to a new study published Wednesday
in the journal Nature.

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

EURONEWS
Scientists 'mind-blown' after James Webb Telescope finds massive
'universe breaker' galaxies

ETC.

The scientific paper behind all this is:
A population of red candidate massive galaxies ~600 Myr after the Big Bang nature.com
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05786-2

[[Mod. note -- Unusually for Nature, this appears to be open-access! -- jt]]

A galaxy bigger than the Milky Way has been spotted just 600 Million
years after the supposed bang.

This confirms in every way what I have been proposing here since
several years: the whole edifice of cosmology is wrong. It is based
upon wrong assumptions.

Now what?

1) the Big Bang is gone but the red-shift is not. Another explanation
must be found for it.
2) The CMB: It is not some echo of the BB but then-- what?

There are now two possible results:
1) Go on denying. This is not a scientific attitude.
2) Develop alternative explanations for what we are seeing.

We have to dissociate astronomy from cosmology. Astronomy is the
science of observing and explaining what we see in the sky. Cosmology
is extrapolating from that into a "Theory of everything", i.e. a
theory of the Universe.

By definition the second activity is not a science since it
extrapolates from the data we have of the observable universe into
the whole. A whole that is unobservable In its entirety.


Jacob


[[Mod. note -- Much of astronomy (indeed, much of science) involves extrapolating from our observations. (That extrapolation generally
involves theoretical models.) For example, what are the chemical
composition and physical conditions at the center of the Sun? Or,
where will Mars be at some specified date/time a few years in the
future?
-- jt]]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

arXiv:2210.16968v2 [astro-ph.GA] 23 Jan 2023
Discovery of a Dusty, Chemically Mature Companion to a z~4 Starburst
Galaxy in JWST ERS Data

A galaxy that has a chemical composition almost identical to our
sun, but at just 1,4 Gy after the supposed big bang. In this paper
the authors take pain to avoid any "heretical" conclusions, but
they present the facts nevertheless. They argue.

"We attempt to reconcile the high metallicity in this system by
invoking early onset of star formation with continuous high star
forming efficiency, or that optical strong line diagnostics need
revision at high redshift"

Or...=

the Big Bang just never happened.

[[Mod. note -- Or, our theoretical models of star formation aren't
that good. Seriously, modelling star formation is *hard* -- there
is turbulence, turbulent magnetic fields, gas and dust, maybe some
ambient ultraviolet light from earlier "population III" stars, and
likely a bunch of other stuff as well.
-- jt]]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

[[Mod. note -- Or, our theoretical models of star formation aren't
that good. Seriously, modelling star formation is *hard* -- there
is turbulence, turbulent magnetic fields, gas and dust, maybe some
ambient ultraviolet light from earlier "population III" stars, and
likely a bunch of other stuff as well.
-- jt]]

Mmmmm...
Star formation models are wrong..., together with galaxy formation
models... and the only theory that stands is the Big Bang theory.

Our sun is 5Gy old. The chemical composition of the cloud that
formed the sun was the chemical composition at 13.7 - 5Gyr = 8.7Gyr.
It took then more than 8Gyr to our galaxy to accumulate "metals"
to build the sun. The fact that a galaxy appears that is chemically
equivalent implies that it also needed 8Gyr to accumulate metals,
but it is only 1.4 Gyrs from the Big Bang. That doesn't fit, so
something must be wrong. Then, we start putting into question the
star formation theories and NOT the Big Bang, of course.

The fact that the old galaxies that we are seeing just 0.6Gyr after
the supposed bang are impossible unless... we say that the galaxy
formation theories are wrong without advancing anything to explain
how and old galaxy can happen in just 0.6 Gyr. If you say that star
formation theory is wrong, you must come with ANOTHER star formation
theory to explain the facts.

Obviously the Big Bang theory has a lot of momentum and will try
to save something for some time. But it is a LOST fight... and
everyone sees it now. It would be more productive if we try to see
what stands after this earthquake.

The assumption that the red shift is due to a Doppler effect is
proved wrong. What are the alternatives? That is the scientific
question now.

jacob

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 3:54:17=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, Jacob Navia wrote:
[]

Our sun is 5Gy old. The chemical composition of the cloud that
formed the sun was the chemical composition at 13.7 - 5Gyr =3D 8.7Gyr.
It took then more than 8Gyr to our galaxy to accumulate "metals"
to build the sun. The fact that a galaxy appears that is chemically equivalent implies that it also needed 8Gyr to accumulate metals,

This is an assumption that a galaxy needs 8Gyr to reach the metallicity
of the Milky Way.

but it is only 1.4 Gyrs from the Big Bang. That doesn't fit, so
something must be wrong. Then, we start putting into question the
star formation theories and NOT the Big Bang, of course.

The fact that the old galaxies that we are seeing just 0.6Gyr after
the supposed bang are impossible

Not impossible, just not yet understood.

unless... we say that the galaxy
formation theories are wrong without advancing anything to explain
how and old galaxy can happen in just 0.6 Gyr. If you say that star
formation theory is wrong, you must come with ANOTHER star formation
theory to explain the facts.

Precisely. This is how we learn and REFINE the models and theories
we use to explain the universe.

Obviously the Big Bang theory has a lot of momentum and will try
to save something for some time. But it is a LOST fight... and
everyone sees it now. It would be more productive if we try to see
what stands after this earthquake.

I don't think the Big Bang is in much of a fight. There isn't any
strong contender around.

The assumption that the red shift is due to a Doppler effect is
proved wrong. What are the alternatives? That is the scientific
question now.

jacob

But red shift is NOT just due to Doppler. It is also due to cosmic
expansion.

This is not the knockout discovery for the Big Bang that you claim.
Ed

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Le mardi 7 mars 2023 =C3=A0 23:18:50 UTC+1, edpr...@gmail.com a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 3:54:17=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, Jacob Navia wrote:
[]

Our sun is 5Gy old. The chemical composition of the cloud that
formed the sun was the chemical composition at 13.7 - 5Gyr =3D 8.7Gyr.
It took then more than 8Gyr to our galaxy to accumulate "metals"
to build the sun. The fact that a galaxy appears that is chemically equivalent implies that it also needed 8Gyr to accumulate metals,

This is an assumption that a galaxy needs 8Gyr to reach the metallicity
of the Milky Way.

but it is only 1.4 Gyrs from the Big Bang. That doesn't fit, so
something must be wrong. Then, we start putting into question the
star formation theories and NOT the Big Bang, of course.

The fact that the old galaxies that we are seeing just 0.6Gyr after
the supposed bang are impossible

Not impossible, just not yet understood.

Excuse me, but you are proposing a new theory of metallicity formation
in galaxies: a FAST one, that arrives at the same metallicity of
the Mily Way in just 1,400 million years. Without providing ANY
justification for it. Metals are built by stars in a long process
in their cores. Then, when the supernovas explode, they disseminate
their metals into the void, where they will be used by the new stars
that start with more metals, etc etc. That is a VERY slow process.

And why are you proposing this "fast track" metallicity process?
Have you any REAL DATA behind your new theory?

No, you just want to save the big bang theory.

unless... we say that the galaxy
formation theories are wrong without advancing anything to explain
how and old galaxy can happen in just 0.6 Gyr. If you say that star formation theory is wrong, you must come with ANOTHER star formation
theory to explain the facts.

Precisely. This is how we learn and REFINE the models and theories
we use to explain the universe.

No

There is another process. When a theory acquires too many problems
it must be discarded entirely. That is why we do not add more
epicycles to theories that put the earth at the center of the
Universe. We DISCARDED the whole theory and built a new, better
one.

Problem: there isn't now any theory to replace the big bang theory.
So, you, and many astronomers also, try to save the big bang theory
against all evidence.

Obviously the Big Bang theory has a lot of momentum and will try
to save something for some time. But it is a LOST fight... and
everyone sees it now. It would be more productive if we try to see
what stands after this earthquake.

I don't think the Big Bang is in much of a fight. There isn't any
strong contender around.

You are right. There is no alternative theory right now.

The assumption that the red shift is due to a Doppler effect is
proved wrong. What are the alternatives? That is the scientific
question now.

jacob

But red shift is NOT just due to Doppler. It is also due to cosmic
expansion.

We assume that the red-shift is caused by cosmic expansion, i.e. a
Doppler effect. Then, we need an origin because if space is expanding,
in the past it was just a point with infinite density at 13,700
million years ago.

This is not what is observed. There is no hint to a big bang in the
photographs of the JWST. Just more galaxies like our own.

This is not the knockout discovery for the Big Bang that you claim.

I have been arguing against that theory since quite a number of
years in this group. The "impossible galaxy" problem was there
already BEFORE the JWST was started. A few days before JWST took
off from Kouru I posted a message here predicting that the JWST
will see more galaxies without end without any trace of a big bang.
This has been confirmed.

But I haven't any new theory of the Universe in my suitcase. I just
see that the big bang theory is wrong, without being able to explain
to you anything. I do not even know what the red-shift is. OK. It
is not a Doppler effect, space is not expanding. But then... what
is it?

I DO NOT KNOW.

Acknowledging your ignorance is the first step in the way of
knowledge. You try to understand what is there ONLY when you see
that you do not know what it is.When you see that your theories are
wrong you try to see reality as it is.

What is the red-shift? It is the red-shift that was discovered
by Hubble that gave impetus to a theory of the "Big Bang" that
"created" the Universe 13,700 Million years ago. And now we have
to return to the start: What is the red-shift?

That is the scientific question to ask now.

Ed

jacob

[[Mod. note --
1. That "1,400 million years" is calculated assuming a big-bang cosmology.
2. > Metals are built by stars in a long process
> in their cores. Then, when the supernovas explode, they disseminate
> their metals into the void, where they will be used by the new stars
> that start with more metals, etc etc. That is a VERY slow process.
This whole process depends STRONGLY on the mass of the star.
Relatively low-mass stars (e.g., solar-mass or below) have lifespans
of 10 billion years or more, and never do supernova. Very high-mass
stars do indeed end their lives in a supernova, but this happens very
fast (well under 10 million years). So the timescale on which metals
build up in a galaxy depends STRONGLY on the distribution of stellar
masses.

We think that "population III" stars (those forming from essentially
hydrogen/helium only, as would be the case for the first stars formed
after the big bang) will tend to be highly massive. But we have
zero direct observational data for this, so there's some uncertainty
about the details.

So, there's substantial uncertainty about just what metal abundance
a galaxy developes at a a given (young) age. And given that, maybe
it's not quite so surprising that our first observations probing
this are not quite what we expected?
-- jt]]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 17/03/2023 06:51, Jacob Navia wrote:

Le mardi 7 mars 2023 =C3=A0 23:18:50 UTC+1, edpr...@gmail.com a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 3:54:17=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, Jacob Navia wrote: >> []

Our sun is 5Gy old. The chemical composition of the cloud that
formed the sun was the chemical composition at 13.7 - 5Gyr =3D 8.7Gyr.
It took then more than 8Gyr to our galaxy to accumulate "metals"
to build the sun. The fact that a galaxy appears that is chemically
equivalent implies that it also needed 8Gyr to accumulate metals,

This is an assumption that a galaxy needs 8Gyr to reach the metallicity
of the Milky Way.

but it is only 1.4 Gyrs from the Big Bang. That doesn't fit, so
something must be wrong. Then, we start putting into question the
star formation theories and NOT the Big Bang, of course.

The fact that the old galaxies that we are seeing just 0.6Gyr after
the supposed bang are impossible

Not impossible, just not yet understood.

Excuse me, but you are proposing a new theory of metallicity formation
in galaxies: a FAST one, that arrives at the same metallicity of
the Mily Way in just 1,400 million years. Without providing ANY
justification for it. Metals are built by stars in a long process
in their cores. Then, when the supernovas explode, they disseminate
their metals into the void, where they will be used by the new stars
that start with more metals, etc etc. That is a VERY slow process.

One way it can be faster back then is if some of the earliest low
metallicity stars in the universe were very massive. In our galaxy
massive O stars for instance survive for only a few tens of thousands of
years on the main sequence and they process a lot of matter before going supernova. Bigger the stellar mass the faster and brighter they burn.

Is there any chance of observational evidence of unusually bright
supernovae in these very remote galaxies (from light curves)?

And why are you proposing this "fast track" metallicity process?
Have you any REAL DATA behind your new theory?

There are plenty of O stars about today even in our galaxy. It isn't
really much of a stretch to consider the possibility that in the early
universe some really very large stars formed and went supernova PDQ.

No, you just want to save the big bang theory.

It isn't in any danger from these data no matter how hard you try to
spin it.

unless... we say that the galaxy
formation theories are wrong without advancing anything to explain
how and old galaxy can happen in just 0.6 Gyr. If you say that star
formation theory is wrong, you must come with ANOTHER star formation
theory to explain the facts.

Precisely. This is how we learn and REFINE the models and theories
we use to explain the universe.

No

There is another process. When a theory acquires too many problems
it must be discarded entirely. That is why we do not add more
epicycles to theories that put the earth at the center of the
Universe. We DISCARDED the whole theory and built a new, better
one.

Problem: there isn't now any theory to replace the big bang theory.
So, you, and many astronomers also, try to save the big bang theory
against all evidence.

SO far the Big Bang seems to fit the observed data well enough.

[[Mod. note --
1. That "1,400 million years" is calculated assuming a big-bang cosmology.
2. > Metals are built by stars in a long process
> in their cores. Then, when the supernovas explode, they disseminate
> their metals into the void, where they will be used by the new stars
> that start with more metals, etc etc. That is a VERY slow process.
This whole process depends STRONGLY on the mass of the star.
Relatively low-mass stars (e.g., solar-mass or below) have lifespans
of 10 billion years or more, and never do supernova. Very high-mass
stars do indeed end their lives in a supernova, but this happens very
fast (well under 10 million years). So the timescale on which metals
build up in a galaxy depends STRONGLY on the distribution of stellar
masses.

We think that "population III" stars (those forming from essentially
hydrogen/helium only, as would be the case for the first stars formed
after the big bang) will tend to be highly massive. But we have
zero direct observational data for this, so there's some uncertainty
about the details.

So, there's substantial uncertainty about just what metal abundance
a galaxy developes at a a given (young) age. And given that, maybe
it's not quite so surprising that our first observations probing
this are not quite what we expected?
-- jt]]

I must admit that I'd prefer stellar evolution theory to be a bit wrong
to having to invoke dark energy to explain the apparent acceleration.

--
Martin Brown

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, March 17, 2023 at 2:51:10=E2=80=AFAM UTC-4, Jacob Navia wrote:

Le mardi 7 mars 2023 =C3=A0 23:18:50 UTC+1, edpr...@gmail.com a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:

On Thursday, March 2, 2023 at 3:54:17=E2=80=AFAM UTC-5, Jacob Navia wrote: []

Our sun is 5Gy old. The chemical composition of the cloud that
formed the sun was the chemical composition at 13.7 - 5Gyr =3D 8.7Gyr.
It took then more than 8Gyr to our galaxy to accumulate "metals"
to build the sun. The fact that a galaxy appears that is chemically equivalent implies that it also needed 8Gyr to accumulate metals,

This is an assumption that a galaxy needs 8Gyr to reach the metallicity
of the Milky Way.

but it is only 1.4 Gyrs from the Big Bang. That doesn't fit, so
something must be wrong. Then, we start putting into question the
star formation theories and NOT the Big Bang, of course.

The fact that the old galaxies that we are seeing just 0.6Gyr after
the supposed bang are impossible

Not impossible, just not yet understood.

Excuse me, but you are proposing a new theory of metallicity formation
in galaxies: a FAST one, that arrives at the same metallicity of
the Mily Way in just 1,400 million years. Without providing ANY
justification for it. Metals are built by stars in a long process
in their cores. Then, when the supernovas explode, they disseminate
their metals into the void, where they will be used by the new stars
that start with more metals, etc etc. That is a VERY slow process.

You made the assertion that such galaxies to exist " just 0.6Gyr after
the supposed bang are impossible."
I merely reminded you that they have been observed and
therefore are clearly not impossible.

And why are you proposing this "fast track" metallicity process?
Have you any REAL DATA behind your new theory?

I did not propose a theory. Why are you being so impatient in
wanting an explanation so soon after this new discovery?
Science doesn't work that way.

No, you just want to save the big bang theory.

unless... we say that the galaxy
formation theories are wrong without advancing anything to explain
how and old galaxy can happen in just 0.6 Gyr. If you say that star formation theory is wrong, you must come with ANOTHER star formation theory to explain the facts.

Precisely. This is how we learn and REFINE the models and theories
we use to explain the universe.

No

There is another process. When a theory acquires too many problems
it must be discarded entirely. That is why we do not add more
epicycles to theories that put the earth at the center of the
Universe. We DISCARDED the whole theory and built a new, better
one.

Sorry, but both types of refinement have happened throughout history: development of complete new theories and revisions of established theories.
It is too early to determine which must happen here.

However, given the large amount of other evidence supporting the Big Bang theory,
I expect we may find this observation to be a new refinement. It may point the way
to some new physical process.

Problem: there isn't now any theory to replace the big bang theory.
So, you, and many astronomers also, try to save the big bang theory
against all evidence.

I'm not trying to save anything "at all costs". I just point out that
this ONE observation is not the death knell you are looking for.

Obviously the Big Bang theory has a lot of momentum and will try
to save something for some time. But it is a LOST fight... and
everyone sees it now. It would be more productive if we try to see
what stands after this earthquake.

I don't think the Big Bang is in much of a fight. There isn't any
strong contender around.

You are right. There is no alternative theory right now.

Agreement. Yeah!

The assumption that the red shift is due to a Doppler effect is
proved wrong. What are the alternatives? That is the scientific
question now.

jacob

But red shift is NOT just due to Doppler. It is also due to cosmic expansion.

We assume that the red-shift is caused by cosmic expansion, i.e. a
Doppler effect. Then, we need an origin because if space is expanding,
in the past it was just a point with infinite density at 13,700
million years ago.

This is not what is observed. There is no hint to a big bang in the photographs of the JWST. Just more galaxies like our own.

The CMB was the last nail in the coffin of a static universe, along with observations of receding galaxies, the current chemical composition
of the universe. The JWST observations are not inconsistent with BB theory.

This is not the knockout discovery for the Big Bang that you claim.

I have been arguing against that theory since quite a number of
years in this group. The "impossible galaxy" problem was there
already BEFORE the JWST was started. A few days before JWST took
off from Kouru I posted a message here predicting that the JWST
will see more galaxies without end without any trace of a big bang.
This has been confirmed.

But I haven't any new theory of the Universe in my suitcase. I just
see that the big bang theory is wrong, without being able to explain
to you anything. I do not even know what the red-shift is. OK. It
is not a Doppler effect, space is not expanding. But then... what
is it?

I DO NOT KNOW.

Yeah! You are in the same position as every astrophysicist.

there is one concept of science to keep in mind:
-----All our theories are wrong, but some are useful.-----

Acknowledging your ignorance is the first step in the way of
knowledge. You try to understand what is there ONLY when you see
that you do not know what it is.When you see that your theories are
wrong you try to see reality as it is.

Yes, but until a more useful theory of the evolution of the universe is proposed,
then the Big Bang theory is the most useful model we have.

What is the red-shift? It is the red-shift that was discovered
by Hubble that gave impetus to a theory of the "Big Bang" that
"created" the Universe 13,700 Million years ago. And now we have
to return to the start: What is the red-shift?

That is the scientific question to ask now.

jacob

Red shift is currently understood as due to three effects:
Doppler Red shift due to motion relative to the observer
Gravitational Red shift due to light traversing a gravitational potential Cosmological Redshift due to the expansion of space itself.

I suspect you doubt the Cosmological Redshift. But it has fit
observations of galaxies prior to JWST.

[[Mod. note --
1. That "1,400 million years" is calculated assuming a big-bang cosmology.
2. > Metals are built by stars in a long process

in their cores. Then, when the supernovas explode, they disseminate
their metals into the void, where they will be used by the new stars
that start with more metals, etc etc. That is a VERY slow process.

This whole process depends STRONGLY on the mass of the star.
Relatively low-mass stars (e.g., solar-mass or below) have lifespans
of 10 billion years or more, and never do supernova. Very high-mass
stars do indeed end their lives in a supernova, but this happens very
fast (well under 10 million years). So the timescale on which metals
build up in a galaxy depends STRONGLY on the distribution of stellar
masses.

We think that "population III" stars (those forming from essentially hydrogen/helium only, as would be the case for the first stars formed
after the big bang) will tend to be highly massive. But we have
zero direct observational data for this, so there's some uncertainty
about the details.

So, there's substantial uncertainty about just what metal abundance
a galaxy developes at a a given (young) age. And given that, maybe
it's not quite so surprising that our first observations probing
this are not quite what we expected?
-- jt]]

I'm glad, Jacob, that you agree that these new observations may require
a new explanation which we do not have yet. But at least I (and
possibly others) do not assume that the BB Theory will be totally
replaced when that explanation comes. As the moderator points out,
we should not be surprised that these observations are not what we expected.

You and others may find this video enlightening
https://youtu.be/hmkyF1tNFc4
from Dr Becky Smethurst, an astrophysicist at the University of Oxford
titled:
JWST has found MASSIVE galaxies in the early Universe which we can't explain (Note, she does not say "impossible")

Ed

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)