For discussion of Electric Universe and Plasma Cosmology. The ideas and opinions expressed on this forum do not necessarily reflect those of T-Bolts Group Inc or The Thunderbolts Project™
Skip to content
by BeAChooser » Fri Feb 24, 2023 12:34 am
When the first images from the James Webb Space Telescope were released last July, astronomers got their earliest look at cosmic history yet, seeing captured images of what the universe looks like billions of light years away. They expected to maybe see some "tiny, young, baby galaxies." What they found, however, was something far greater – six massive galaxies dating back about 13.1 billion years that appeared to be just as old as the Milky Way is now. "These objects are way more massive than anyone expected," astronomer Joel Leja said. "...We've discovered galaxies as mature as our own in what was previously understood to be the dawn of the universe." Those findings were published on Wednesday in the journal Nature (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586- ... MSF0951a18). Ivo Labbé, the lead author of the study, said they started realizing they were onto something barely a week after the telescope images were released. "Little did I know that among the pictures is a small red dot that will shake up our understanding of how the first galaxies formed after the Big Bang," Labbé said. "...I run the analysis software on the little pinprick and it spits out two numbers: distance 13.1 billion light years, mass 100 billion stars, and I nearly spit out my coffee. We just discovered the impossible. Impossibly early, impossibly massive galaxies." … snip … That red dot was just the beginning. The next day, they found five more apparent galaxies. And the pictures taken by JWST show them as they were when our 13.8 billion-year-old universe was a mere 700 million years old. And if that's the case, they said, that would mean that the galaxies formed "as many stars as our present-day Milky Way. In record time." … snip … "Regardless, the amount of mass we discovered means that the known mass in stars at this period of our universe is up to 100 times greater than we had previously thought," Leja said. "...The revelation that massive galaxy formation began extremely early in the history of the universe upends what many of us had thought was settled science. We've been informally calling these objects 'universe breakers' — and they have been living up to their name so far." The objects, they said, are so big that scientists may have to alter cosmology models or force a total consensus revision of the belief that galaxies start out as little dust clouds and take a long time to become giant entities.
James Webb telescope captures ancient galaxies that theoretically shouldn't exist … snip … The scientists explained that they should not exist under current cosmological theory, because there shouldn't have been enough matter at the time for the galaxies to form as many stars as ours has.
by BeAChooser » Sat Feb 04, 2023 11:08 pm
ASTRONOMERS MAY BE ON THE CUSP OF A “POTENTIALLY REVOLUTIONARY” COSMOLOGICAL BREAKTHROUGH These astronomers have the next 50 years all planned out.
by BeAChooser » Fri Feb 03, 2023 11:54 pm
Marioantonio wrote: ↑Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:07 pm Okay? What does that have to do with anything? That is completely out of left field.
by Marioantonio » Fri Feb 03, 2023 8:07 pm
Cargo wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:28 am Marioantonio wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:20 pm crawler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm The universe is infinite & eternal. People in the EU don’t like the term infinite. Can we just say without beginning or end? Ageless? We don't? Says who? ;p It all depends on the context. ;]
Marioantonio wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:20 pm crawler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm The universe is infinite & eternal. People in the EU don’t like the term infinite. Can we just say without beginning or end? Ageless?
crawler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm The universe is infinite & eternal.
BeAChooser wrote: ↑Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:21 pm He’s apparently also an AGWalarmist too.
by jacmac » Tue Jan 31, 2023 4:41 pm
by BeAChooser » Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:21 pm
No, the Big Bang theory is not 'broken.' Here's how we know.
by Cargo » Mon Jan 30, 2023 4:28 am
by nick c » Sun Jan 29, 2023 1:03 am
marioantonio wrote:People in the EU don’t like the term infinite.
by Marioantonio » Sat Jan 28, 2023 9:40 pm
crawler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:02 pm Marioantonio wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:20 pm crawler wrote: ↑Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm The universe is infinite & eternal. People in the EU don’t like the term infinite. Can we just say without beginning or end? Ageless? Hmmm -- without beginning or end dimension wize -- ok (ie infinite)(ie infinite up n down n across)(ie in 3 dimensions). And without beginning or end time wize -- ok (ie eternal)(eternal going back in time & eternal going forward in time). One problem is that BBers might agree re infinite dimension wize -- koz i think that according to some BB theory if u travel in what u think is a straight line then u come back to where u started. And another problem is that many of us don believe that there is such a thing as time -- time is an illusion (me)(Einstein)(others) -- hence the concept of eternal might be problematic. Ageless. Hmmmm -- no, i dont agree -- i think that everything has an age, even if only an instant -- i think that ageless is a term used praps by theater critics etc not science.
by crawler » Fri Jan 27, 2023 8:02 pm
by Marioantonio » Fri Jan 27, 2023 6:20 pm
by crawler » Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:36 pm
by BeAChooser » Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:54 pm
Standard Model of Cosmology Survives a Telescope’s Surprising Finds Reports that the James Webb Space Telescope killed the reigning cosmological model turn out to have been exaggerated. By Rebecca Boyle … snip … The earliest of those confirmed galaxies shed its light 330 million years after the Big Bang, making it the new record-holder for the earliest known structure in the universe.
Astronomers began asking whether the profusion of early big things defies the current understanding of the cosmos. Some researchers and media outlets claimed that the telescope’s observations were breaking the standard model of cosmology — a well-tested set of equations called the lambda cold dark matter, or ΛCDM, model — thrillingly pointing to new cosmic ingredients or governing laws. It has since become clear, however, that the ΛCDM model is resilient. Instead of forcing researchers to rewrite the rules of cosmology, the JWST findings have astronomers rethinking how galaxies are made, especially in the cosmic beginning. The telescope has not yet broken cosmology, but that doesn’t mean the case of the too-early galaxies will turn out to be anything but epochal.
One problem is that ΛCDM’s predictions aren’t always clear-cut. While dark matter and dark energy are simple, visible matter has complex interactions and behaviors, and nobody knows exactly what went down in the first years after the Big Bang; those frenetic early times must be approximated in computer simulations.
Brant Robertson, a JADES astronomer at the University of California, Santa Cruz, says the findings show that the early universe changed rapidly in its first billion years, with galaxies evolving 10 times quicker than they do today.
One key assumption is that stars always form within a certain statistical range of masses, called the initial mass function (IMF). This IMF parameter is crucial for gleaning a galaxy’s mass from measurements of its brightness, because hot, blue, heavy stars produce more light, while the majority of a galaxy’s mass is typically locked up in cool, red, small stars. But it’s possible that the IMF was different in the early universe. If so, JWST’s early galaxies might not be as heavy as their brightness suggests; they might be bright but light. This possibility causes headaches, because changing this basic input to the ΛCDM model could give you almost any answer you want. Lovell says some astronomers consider fiddling with the IMF “the domain of the wicked.” … snip … Over the course of the fall, many experts came to suspect that tweaks to the IMF and other factors could be enough to square the very ancient galaxies lighting upon JWST’s instruments with ΛCDM.
In that case, she said, “what we learn is: How fast can [dark matter] halos collect the gas?”
Somerville also studies the possibility that black holes interfered with the baby cosmos. Astronomers have noticed a few glowing supermassive black holes at a redshift of 6 or 7, about a billion years after the Big Bang. It is hard to conceive of how, by that time, stars could have formed, died and then collapsed into black holes that ate everything surrounding them and began spewing radiation. But if there are black holes inside the putative early galaxies, that could explain why the galaxies seem so bright, even if they’re not actually very massive, Somerville said.
by BeAChooser » Sat Jan 14, 2023 4:07 am
Cargo wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 1:50 am https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-n ... -galaxies/
“We're not surprised to see disk galaxies,” Kartaltepe clarifies. “I think the surprise is to see so many of them. . . . We're really not seeing the earliest stages of galaxy formation yet.”
by Cargo » Sat Jan 14, 2023 1:50 am
Top