They’ll cling to the Big Bang until their fingernails bleed.
Astronomers have discovered what appear to be massive galaxies dating back to within 600 million years of the Big Bang, suggesting the early universe may have had a stellar fast-track that produced these “monsters.”
While the new James Webb Space Telescope has spotted even older galaxies, dating to within a mere 300 million years of the beginning of the universe, it’s the size and maturity of these six apparent mega-galaxies that stun scientists. They reported their findings Wednesday.
Lead researcher Ivo Labbe of Australia’s Swinburne University of Technology and his team expected to find little baby galaxies this close to the dawn of the universe — not these whoppers.
“While most galaxies in this era are still small and only gradually growing larger over time,” he said in an email, “there are a few monsters that fast-track to maturity. Why this is the case or how this would work is unknown.” […]
“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,” Leja said in a statement. “It turns out we found something so unexpected it actually creates problems for science. It calls the whole picture of early galaxy formation into question.”
But trust the science right?
Just admit it, we really don’t know.
The big bang, something from nothing, right. mankind where we are today, they all want something for nothing and it most likely will come from nothing.
Before the big bang, there was the big suck.
Ask me. I am a scientist.
Where they say Galaxies ‘grow’. It takes matter to have growth. I don’t believe the star systems in Galaxies can generate matter out of nothing. Apparently god can do this, but we aren’t sure about that either.
So how do galaxies ‘grow’ .. What materials are used for growth and where do they come from?
I think when they talk about galaxies growing they mean in volume, not mass.
Well, thanks for that. If what you is so, then those particular galaxies are expanding, not growing. Growth means more matter. No?
Are we debating semantics here?
Don’t even get me started on inflation.
RNrn
Expanding would be a better word for it.
They grow via gravitational accretion of gas in the intergalactic space.
By collecting other nearby galaxies and intergalactic matter. Once two galaxies are in a gravitational embrace, they must eventually coalesce, like this:
https://esahubble.org/images/heic0206b/
In the earliest years of the universe, galaxies would have been closer together, making the odds of merging greater. The puzzlement here is that there was not enough time to create huge ones.
I really hope these “researchers” are just doing this for a hobby, no tax dollars involved.
Stew..
HAHAHAHA, nice joke.
What is that question…ah, yes…” I would rather have questions that cannot be answered than answers that cannot be questioned.”
Unless of course, your hubris is of a greater magnitude than some of those galaxies.
I concur…
https://twitter.com/urbancottageman/status/1614763132911554562?s=46&t=nJqNlxeE6TwKmBCOVIAokg
RNrn
You are free to question the fact that the Earth is round.
You are free to say that force is not equal to mass times acceleration.
I think u need to take a look at the article and the pixelated mess that they are using to arrive at these results. The assumptions and errors are likely huge …. monster galaxies that look like a code error in the processing program might be suspect IMO.
Also don’t forget that the “big bang” term was coined by Fred Hoyle on a BBC broadcast as semi mocking the expanding universe which he was skeptical of. The universe does indeed appear to be expanding but a big bang start is a terrible analogy but a good name for a TV comedy.
I sometimes wonder about the education level of some of the commenters here … whether learned by school or self taught. J West for example today …. If West is really interested in galaxy formation (actual intelligent info on galaxies) there is lots of info available on the web or at the library …. but of course that is hard and involves work and so lets just make nonsensical comments on a blog.
Keep warm folks, it is cold out there today.
I do not consider my questions nonsensical, they are genuine.
Thanks for the friendly tip about studying galaxies. I have no intention of becoming an astrophysicist, I am simply trying to understand what I am reading on a posting on SDA. So I ask questions. Perhaps in your world questions are not allowed.
Let me quote another from this string. Doesn’t apply completely, but you get the drift.
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.“
as they start to swing that thing around and look in all directions. there is the possibility that the universe is infinite or structured in pulses.
Either they don’t understand galaxy formation, or they don’t understand the age of the universe. I am willing to bet on ‘and’.
Microwave background radiation, cosmological red shifts, all explained away as false by people who don’t know the difference between a Fourier transform and a Laplace transform, people who think a metric is a global conspiracy. New-age Flat Earthers.
Recently read about an idea that as galaxies fall into black holes, the matter pops out of white holes elsewhere. Then there are these.
https://interestingengineering.com/science/5-alternatives-to-the-big-bang-theory
The only one with any evidence at all to back it up is the big bang.
Some people are like Creationists, looking desperately for any phenomenon that isn’t explained by a given theory, and then saying that is evidence of their pet theory, while their pet theory has zero predictive powers, and, as a result, doesn’t even count as a theory, like the “Simulation hypothesis”, that cannot be taken seriously in any scientific context.
Yet their discovery has nothing to do with the validity of the big bang theory.
On the bright side, I am closer to understanding how easily people can be duped into thinking that CAGW is a thing.
HiHo, People are easily duped, period!
The problem is getting them to accept they have been duped, and are then willing to renegotiate that reality.
Getting them to accept that they have been duped is like pulling teeth, it would entail them having to learn something, when they would rather point the finger at Aristotle and say “He was wrong about how many teeth women had, and if he can be wrong, anyone can.”, as if that is some kind of argument against a given model.
Such is the state of the west.
That The Big Bang occurred is probably beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence is pervasive.
It’s the details of how it occurred which are up for debate.
When you ask a CAGW proponent for evidence, he will start to blather on about computer models.
When you ask a big bang proponent for evidence, he will show you spectrographic data gathered over many decades, maps of the microwave background radiation, etc.
The word for people who cannot distinguish between computer models and real data is “idiot.”
They’ll cling to the Big Bang Theory because the evidence overwhelmingly points to it.
But science is never settled, contrary to what the CAGW proponents think, and now they have something they didn’t expect to figure out.
Not too long ago they clung to the Infinite Universe Theory with a tenacity that verged on fanaticism, because a universe that had a beginning MUST have a cause.
Like a creator.
And we can’t have that.
“because a universe that had a beginning MUST have a cause.”
Who says that the “big bang” was a beginning? The big bang is just a model, a crude projection back in time of our observed behaviour of the universe. The back-cast leads to a mystery, a singularity. We do not know or perhaps can not know if the universe blossomed from a singularity or if there was any “before” at the time (did time exist?) of the manifesting of the singularity. So invoking a “creator” is not a slam-dunk for creationist proponents. Can’t we just have a mystery without a deus ex machina?
What evidence overwhelmingly points to it? Other than a theory I’ve never heard or seen actual evidence.
Evidence pointing to big bang:
Red shift of galaxies, galaxies more distant are moving away from us faster, with a velocity proportional to their distance.
Microwave background radiation.
Both of which have been measured over and over and over again.
The Big Bang theory for astronomers is not unlike the Global Warming theory for the true climate believers. In addition the speed of light is not quite constant as space is not a perfect vacuum as believed in the 1930.
https://iai.tv/articles/the-big-bang-didnt-happen-auid-2215
Roy Lofquist 12 August 2022
Summary: Radio astronomy observations of Pulsars indicate that the Hubble Red Shift is caused by “Tired Light” rather than the expansion of the universe.
When Hubble published his observations of red shifted light from distant objects there were two possible explanations that came to the fore. One, originated by Georges Lemaitre, was that the Universe was expanding. The other, from Fritz Zwicky, was that light lost energy as it traveled, termed “tired light”. At that time, ca. 1930, interstellar and intergalactic space were assumed to be perfect vacuums and thus there was no mechanism to redden the light. Now, 90 years later, we have actual observational evidence that Zwicky was right.
In the radio astronomy of Pulsars we find that the shorter wavelengths of the leading edge of the pulse arrive before longer wavelengths. The velocity of light, c, is NOT constant but varies by wavelength. This time dispersion is proportional to the distance from us of the pulsar, indicating that the reduction in velocity is cumulative. The observed effect is isotropic. The interstellar medium is not a vacuum but rather affects light waves in a way best described as having an Index of Refraction greater than 1, unity. We find the same phenomenon in the observation of Fast Radio Bursts from other galaxies, thus indicating that the intergalactic media is not an electromagnetic vacuum.
Total BS, right up there with Flat Earthers.
We have measured red-shifts in labs, and they conform to Einstein’s theory.
We have measured, and indeed use gravitational time dilation in GPS systems.
There’s about a thousand holes in that theory.
We know what the spectral lines of hydrogen are. Dispersion does not explain how those spectral lines get shifted, while a Doppler effect explains it nicely.
Not to mention that the slightly blue-shifted light from the Andromeda galaxy blows a hole in the “tired light” hypothesis a mile wide.
This is another example of scientism.
If the “science changes” for the efficacy of the jabs but not for anything else, perhaps un-curious masses can explain why.
They won’t, though.
No, this is science.
This is not the first time that observation has failed to conform to a model, and it won’t be the last.
Also, the model at issue here is NOT the big bang, rather it is some models of early galaxy formation.
Did you know that Maxwell’s equations of electromagnetism and Newton’s equations of mechanics made a prediction that failed to conform to the existing model? Thus was born quantum mechanics.
The fact remains that Maxwell’s equations and Newtonian mechanics are still very, very useful.
You idiots who think that “your model is wrong, therefore my model is right, or, at least, being wrong, its totally useless” are the bane of scientific and critical thinking, and are the root cause of so many people taking the jab, believing in CAGW, etc.
You refuse to do your homework, learn the techniques involved, and then come to your own conclusions, and prefer to be spoon-fed pap that confirms your own biases.
Every time I hear a scientist claim with certainty the origins of the universe, the age of the universe and what we can expect next from the universe I cant help but remember Spencer Tracey beating the logic out of who ever played the part of William Jennings Bryant and wish that there could actually be a debate with these people. You don’t know, your guessing, it’s all just a best guess calculated with the 1/1,000,000 of actual information we have.
There is constant debate. Its done in the language of mathematics.
Math is hard, most people refuse to learn it, and as a result, don’t have a freakin’ clue as to what the models actually say, what’s up for debate, etc.
if you think people who don’t know the math are able to debate meaningfully with people who do, you are part of the problem, in fact, that is the very same thinking that the progressives use when they talk about “native knowledge”, etc.
The lot of you are like the leftists proclaiming that 2+2=5, worse even, like some greenie who doesn’t know a tappet valve from a wax motor from a stator telling us how great EVs are.
There is so much we do not see and so much we do not know.
I blame it on Dark Matter.
Physicist Bill Gaede is well worth having a listen to on these subjects and others.
http://youstupidrelativist.com/
No, he isn’t.
You either learn the math, and know the subject, or you don’t.
There is no “easy way” to understanding that will avoid all the work, no matter how glib.
You want to learn how General Relativity works, you learn tensor analysis.
You want to learn how quantum field theory works, you learn multivariable calculus, linear algebra, group theory.
“They’ll cling to the Big Bang until their fingernails bleed.”
Tell us, O fount of knowledge, what model do you prefer, and why?
Then tell us all of the empirical evidence that supports it.
Then tell us of its predictive power.
There is the problem right there. You can’t live without an answer even if it’s wrong. If someone doesn’t have an alternative model then they are wrong. Just like when Earth was 20 million years old because … the model … which had math.
Well, we looked into the sky with ever more powerful telescopes and said “it looks like this is happening.”
You are suggesting we look at the world around us and just shrug our shoulders and say “dunno”, as that’s what “not having a model” means.
Post-modernism is a mental illness.
The absolute state of the west today:
A bunch of aholes who stayed in a Holiday Inn last night thinking that they now have the qualifications to debate people with years of training in a subject that they know nothing about.
It should come as no surprise that people swallow CAGW, take the jab, wear a mask, etc, because they are no longer able to tell facts from fiction, refuse to learn the skills that will enable them to tell fact from fiction, and have outsource what little remains of the mush of their minds to whoever most glibly confirms their emotionally-derived viewpoints.
What about the climate scientists who know the math and have the wrong models? Do they not exist? Why can’t the universe ponderers be wrong?
They can be wrong, but if you can’t explain observations, you have squat.
You seem to be one of the people I mentioned earlier, who cannot distinguish a computer model from actual data.
Actual data are called “observations.”
Observations like the fact that galaxies (that we are not gravitationally bound to, which is all except the nearest few) are receding from us with a velocity proportional top their distance.
Observations like the microwave background radiation.
Thanks for the lesson. You must be very smart.
Not really, I just spent many decades studying this stuff.
I like it when a new theory comes out, and I won’t call any of them wrong unless they are pseudo-science, like the Flat Earth or Electric Universe bunk.
Take S-Matrix theory, I don’t like it very much, but I will admit we can learn a lot from it, and I won’t say its wrong.
As to the climate models, there is no “math”, they are computer models based on a bunch of assumptions, none of them can explain observations, yet all of them claim we’re all about to roast.
Ask these models to explain the observed fact that ice-cores show temperatures starting to rise before CO2 starts to rise, that the temperature increase starts at a CO2 minimum, CO2 rises with temperature for a while, then the temperature starts to fall when CO2 is at a maximum. Then they’ll start blathering on about how much faster recent changes in CO2 levels are, but the fact is, their climate models do not even try to explain these observations, and as such, are not science.
For those of you who may be interested in how our current models work, and know a bit of math, I recommend this site:
https://theoreticalminimum.com/
Not that I spend too much time concerning myself with the validity of Big Ban Theory (Eventually, our understanding of the universe will evolve, and another theory will gain traction.), I’ve questioned it because of a question a physicist asked: If the Big Bang is correct, then the relative motion of galaxies would lead one to be able to point towards a center of the universe. Why don’t we know which direction the center of the universe is?
“If the Big Bang is correct, then the relative motion of galaxies would lead one to be able to point towards a center of the universe.”
Not true.
You need to study some general relativity, learn what Minkowski spacetime is, etc.
yes. the centre is everywhere just like at singularity .
Lastly, I will explain something that shouldn’t need an explanation, but apparently does:
Saying “This old model or that old model proved to be incorrect, therefor this newer model or that newer model too is incorrect.” is an exercise in sophistry, and nothing more.
I liked Fred Hoyle’s Steady State theory, which allowed for a universe infinite in time in both directions. I still like it. Philosophically more satisfying. I’m told Fred’s numbers didn’t reflect observations, which were getting better with improvements in telescopes. Steady State lost out to Big Bang. Now it has problems. Maybe Fred was right!
As we get better observations and more measurements,our theories will change.
The beauty of the scientific method,is that every little insight and new piece of information we gain,opens us to questions we could not have conceived of prior to the new data.
Don’t know,is a perfectly acceptable summation .
“The Big Bang” is different from “God done it” depending upon your point of view.
The only certainty here,is that the absolutely certain,will be wrong..
Any one been following the study of our sun,since the close orbit sensors became operative?
So much of what we were certain of,is under review..
But the “pictures” are glorious.
We should know that we know so little,but must always try to piece together the most coherent picture (theory) with what we can measure now.
For unless we do this,we never learn what to measure next,or even imagine what we need to measure.
Could be why religion,the dogmatic type, is more popular than science.
For the Scientific Method breaks the heart of our pattern seeking brain.
We want,hell almost demand certainty.
Good Science gives us more questions.
Opens our certainties to doubt.
Naturally we are uncomfortable with a method that constantly exposes our ignorance,we are hard wired to shriek and lunge.
It took mankind years to formulate the Scientific Method,first rule,do not fool yourself.
“Settled Science”,there is such a thing?
We love our religions.