The James Webb Telescope recently discovered 6 galaxies up to 10 times larger than the Milky Way at distances that suggest they had to be formed 1/2 billion years after the alleged Big Bang. The problem is that such large galaxies could not possibly have attained such sizes in such a short amount of time following the Big Bang. According to the Big Bang theory galaxy formation began about 350 million years after the Big Bang and these were relatively small in the beginning, only growing in size as they merged with other small galaxies. The implications of the discovery of the ancient galaxies are enormous. The first problem is the question of whether the Big Bang ever even occurred. And if never happened, how was the Universe formed in the first place? Or did it always exist (i.e. is the Static Universe theory the correct one?). Other theories (i.e. energy and matter formation) also come into question.
As much as you can say it hasn't been proven wrong it hasn't been correct either. I'm not really a religious type but I do believe in an intelligent designer or creator and I think it takes more faith to believe in a random Big bang than it does to believe that something somewhere had a plan and set it in motion
I didn't say it's been proven wrong, I asked for opinions with respect to IF the prevailing theory has really been proven wrong by these recent discoveries. So there are 3 possibilities in my opinion assuming we discount the possibility that the James Webb telescope is defective. 1. The Big Bang did happen but the timing is all wrong. Along with that it follows that the Universe is much older and larger than the current estimates. 2. The Big Bang did happen about 13.8 billion years ago (give or take) but the theory of galactic formation is wrong. 3. The Big Bang never happened. I'm an atheist and of course don't believe in a "creator" despite (and because of) having been indoctrinated in religious school early in my life. Having said that it seems to me one who believes in a creator would necessarily have to believe in some sort of Big Bang since the Big Bang is a type of creation (setting aside Biblical mythology). Regardless, I am not interested in a discussion based on religious beliefs or any kind of "creator". I'm interested in a scientific discussion, this isn't the "Religion & Philosophy" section of the forum.
Not 'wrong' necessarily. Just not accurate. Our timeframe could be off. There could be as-yet-untheorized dynamics at play (this is a given imo). Or it could be totally wrong and something else entirely happened. This is just one more step in figuring out which. The 'lie' is anyone who claims 'the science is settled' in regards to anything. Even flying spaghetti monster is still technically on the table.
The theory includes what happened fractions of a second from the start of the Big Bang. I always wondered how on earth do they come up with these theories. A trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, our entire universe was filled with an incredibly hot and dense plasma of energy. Throughout every corner of space, the temperature was a billion times hotter than the core of the Sun, and the energy density was equivalent to more than 1035 pounds in every cubic foot (1036 kilograms per cubic meter). Under these ultra-hot and ultra-dense conditions, every particle was constantly smashing into others. Within even a fraction of a trillionth of a second, the energy possessed by a given particle would change forms many trillions of times. Energy in the form of an electron might be converted into a photon, then into a Higgs boson, followed by the creation of a top quark, transforming over and over again. Nothing was permanent in this era. Everything was in flux. During these first moments, space was expanding at a staggering rate. Between 10-12 and 10-9 second after the Big Bang, the volume of our universe increased by a factor of about 30,000, and the temperature dropped by a factor of 30. Within only 10-10 second, the temperature had dropped far enough that top quarks — the most massive of the known particles — began to disappear more often than they were being created. In a fraction of a blink of an eye, top quarks, Higgs bosons, Z bosons, and W bosons had each vanished almost entirely from our universe. https://astronomy.com/magazine/news...-the-end-of-the-universe-it-began-with-a-bang
I suspect, like AGW, you're going to be on the wrong side of this science discussion as well... What JWT is documenting is that the assumption of nothing to something and the estimated timelines for populating the universe with the matter and energy it is able to now see essentially disproves the idea that everything came form one starting point. Orthodoxy seems to be your drug of choice.
I will take the science over some God proofed into existence and created everything - that is for sure
That is not true. It simply means that the current theories need to be re-examined. This is nothing new, and happens all the time in science. I am old enough to remember when most of what was understood in geology has been completely changed over time. And even at this time the geology of North America and the creation of the Rocky Mountains is being seriously reconsidered and that all of the prior models are likely wrong.
Anton has long been one of my favorite science Youtubers. As he tries to break down new concepts into language that most people can understand. And he is actually rather unusual in that he will even present theories he does not accept. He simply presents the claims and evidence as presented, and often simply closes with something like "This is interesting, but it is too early to be sure and we should wait for more evidence". I find it refreshing when YT content makers will openly say something like that and not claim that any new thing that come up has to be the truth.
In the OP's video, I watched that scientists are proposing more observations for the James Webb Telescope in the second round of observations to try to get to the bottom of this mystery. They will have to test their theories from facts provided by the James Webb to be sure of what the data is telling us. As Michio Kaku said elsewhere, these red-shifted galaxies are upsetting the apple cart.
Yes, Kaku is always trying to throw the cards in the air at the least provocation. Now comes the challenge of understanding this new information. And, that will definitely take time. Plus, whoever did this vid fails in pronunciation, mixes up comparisons, and actually compares galaxies to the size of our sun - which is a small star. Plus, the Milkey Way is old enough that star creation is slower than it is for younger galaxies, as the raw material is being used up. So, comparing our star formation rate to that of some hot young galaxy is certainly OK, but there has to be care taken in how that comparison is used, something this vid fails at. Early on, the video suggests that physicists are sweating bullets over this new data. What BS!! Astrophysicists PRAY for this kind of information. There are lots of unanswered questions. If all that had been found simply confirmed the current model, how does THAT help? New JWST data is wildly exciting! And, it certainly does NOT mean that it's time for civilians to guess at you 3 questions.
Yes, JWST time has been MASSIVELY over subscribed for the last decade. And, it has been in constant operation - 24/7, every day of the year.
Really? I don't know of JWST being capable of looking back nearly that far. And, arguments pertaining to origins are coming from multiple sources - not just light telescopes. There is new data. That doesn't mean that there is some sort of proof of something. Let's not be so anti-science.
True. It's standard practice for scientists who get telescope time to have their images embargoed from view by others for a period of time. Before that policy, there were phd candidates and others whose projects simply got blown away by other scientists - which is catastrophic for phd candidates who have spend years getting to where they are. They then would have to start over - or choose to leave the field empty handed. There are also images that JWST creates for all to see immediately - such as we have seen. So, besides all that is made public immediately, there is a lot of data that will become available as phd papers get published and/or embargoes time out. Today, it takes a miracle to get an hour (or whatever) on Hubble - let alone JWST. The demand is huge.
Speak to the theorists, I was simply stating what the prevailing theory claims, it's not my theory or my claim. See Post #3, Possibility #2, that one is mine. That's the point of this thread, that the prevailing theory is being called into question.
This is not a thread meant for experts, it's strictly a thread meant for discussion by posters in this forum. Anyone is free to "guess" or not. If you believe there are more than 3 possibilities, by all means, list them.
Which still entirely ignores the substantive discussion here. If, as you suggest "science" orthodoxy is your religious experience, and that orthodoxy essentially says something (but not god) "created", where are you really then? The substance based conversation left you behind, grasping. It seems to be a pattern.
Anything for the dogma.. you prove the point I'm making for me. The wind shifts, but you don't. How predictable...
My point is that it is not time for anyone to make guesses. Some data got gathered. It's time to allow astrophysicists and cosmologists to figure out what it means.
False. I'm more than willing to change. But, before deciding that what we know is all garbage, it's seriously important to get an analysis by experts. Choosing one's beliefs based on first impressions is just plain silly.
This is not an issue of orthodoxy vs. NOT orthodoxy. Science is always a matter of stepwise improvement and refinement. When new data arrives, the rational response is to spend some time in analysis - not to suddenly delete what has proven useful to date.
I suppose that having cited said experts still hasn't moved you, but who cares, the orthodoxy that sustains you remains the constant in your posts... On this, the orthodoxy that you cling to seems quite flat earthish... Perhaps you will work on this in the future.
LOL... so, flat earth is still a go for you? I mean, given your standard here, "some time in analysis" could be eons. How long does it take for you to see with your own eyes the galaxies that could not exist at the distance they are for there to have been a big bang? Eons? Days? hours? Or are you trying to suggest that the data collected is fabricated in some way?
