XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.astronomy, alt.science
XPost: alt.politics

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-11440133/NASA-starts-new-chapter-astronomy-image-galaxy-formed-350M-years-big-bang.html

NASA's James Webb starts a 'new chapter in astronomy' with an
astounding image of a galaxy that formed only 350 million years
after the Big Bang - the oldest ever seen by human eyes

NASA's James Webb snapped an image showing an ‘undiscovered
country’ of early galaxies, with one forming just 350 million
years after the big bang that happened 13.8 billion years ago

. . .

Looks as if galaxies formed a bit earlier than expected.

What has not been obtained yet is the spectrographic
analysis to determine what KIND of stars comprise this
particular - and very bright - galaxy. There is much
speculation that it might be "Population-III" stars -
the first - all hydrogen and helium and no heavy
elements.

You'd think the first stars would be called Pop-I :-)

In any case, this hyper-distant object is heavily
red-shifted ... likely beyond what Hubble can see.
And, finding such a structure THAT early suggests
there may be others even earlier. If found, it
might bring that supposed 13.8 billion year figure
for this universe into question.

Alas even Webb has its limits. What might lie even
further into the infrared and below ??? The 13.8
figure was derived from observations - and temporal
backtracking - but NEW data might upset that math.

Just for fun, I'm going to propose a very large
orbital terahertz telescope - synthetic aperture
tricks or interferometry may be needed to up the
needed resolution. In principle, because it's
more "antenna" than "optics", it might be cheaper
to build than Webb. However it would have to be
delivered in pieces and assembled in orbit (ask
Musk to do it, build robot wrench-jockeys too).

What invisible things would be revealed ???
13.8, and the data/math behind it, might prove to
be seriously wrong. I'm gonna throw out a 20-billion
figure here ... prove me wrong ! :-)

I'm also going to posit that "black holes" aren't
really black - just super-dense matter that shifts
the light emitted WAY red - terahertz, microwave,
maybe just "Hertz" .......

Hmm ... if the radius is smaller than the radiation
wavelength that would be emitted, the 'hole' becomes
a very inefficient radiator - which would make it
look even more black. Sub-Hertz telescope anyone ?
Superconductor strands 100,000+ miles long. Better
orbit that out past Pluto :-)

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