James Webb telescope detects evidence of ancient ‘universe breaker’ galaxies (stars, see)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The James Webb space telescope has detected what appear to be six massive ancient galaxies, which astronomers are calling “universe breakers” because their existence could upend current theories of cosmology.
The objects date to a time when the universe was just 3% of its current age and are far larger than was presumed possible for galaxies so early after the big bang. If confirmed, the findings would call into question scientists’ understanding of how the earliest galaxies formed.
“These objects are way more massive than anyone expected,” said Joel Leja, an assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State University and a study co-author. “We expected only to find tiny, young, baby galaxies at this point in time, but we’ve discovered galaxies as mature as our own in what was previously understood to be the dawn of the universe.”
So, is the house of cards of assumptions about the "early universe" coming down with the direct observations made with JWST?
Decades of assumptions made on top of assumptions, made on top of other assumptions, made on top of more assumptions are not resisting to the reality test of direct observation.
Here's a question to ponder; if the universe is both all there is, and is expanding post-the Big Bang, what do we call the area outside of the universe?
We can only go back as far as the Big Bang. The biggest misconception that the general public has about the Big Bang, is that it marks the origin point of the universe, when in reality it simply says that the universe was hotter and denser in the past.
I personally love the idea of eternal inflation, which suggests that our universe is one of many, as there are new “Big Bangs” happening all the time, though they are not causally connected to us. Theoretical physicist Alan Guth is one of the proponents of that hypothesis.
If we don't know the origin of the Big Bang, how is it different from B'Raisheet (phonetic)/Shemot (sp)?
If we don't know the origin of the Big Bang, how is it different from B'Raisheet (phonetic)/Shemot (sp)?
It isn't. We can come up with various scientific scenarios to explain the origin, but until we can actually make measurements of such an event it's more philosophy than science.
It isn't. We can come up with various scientific scenarios to explain the origin, but until we can actually make measurements of such an event it's more philosophy than science.
That is kind of what I thought, and I may start a thread on this. The Vikings, various American Indian tribes and of course the Jews have shockingly similar origin stories. I would start it now but I have my summary of the Norse sagas at home and I am at work. What science is better at is tracing the post-creation (or Big Bang) development of the world.
It isn't. We can come up with various scientific scenarios to explain the origin, but until we can actually make measurements of such an event it's more philosophy than science.
Change that "phiosophy" to "fantasy" and you're more accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by king john IV
Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.
—Werner Heisenberg
.
Exactly.
Often over-looked--As the Uhiverse supposedly "expands," it isn't expanding into empty space--Space-time itself is expanding.
That is kind of what I thought, and I may start a thread on this. The Vikings, various American Indian tribes and of course the Jews have shockingly similar origin stories. I would start it now but I have my summary of the Norse sagas at home and I am at work. What science is better at is tracing the post-creation (or Big Bang) development of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
Change that "phiosophy" to "fantasy" and you're more accurate.
Exactly.
Often over-looked--As the Uhiverse supposedly "expands," it isn't expanding into empty space--Space-time itself is expanding.
Originally Posted by University of Michigan website
One of the most persistently asked questions has been: How was the universe created? Many once believed that the universe had no beginning or end and was truly infinite. Through the inception of the Big Bang theory, however,no longer could the universe be considered infinite. The universe was forced to take on the properties of a finite phenomenon, possessing a history and a beginning.
About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted (sic) prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance (sic) was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe.
The origin of the Big Bang theory can be credited to Edwin Hubble. Hubble made the observation that the universe is continuously expanding. He discovered that a galaxys (sic) velocity is proportional to its distance. Galaxies that are twice as far from us move twice as fast. Another consequence is that the universe is expanding in every direction. This observation means that it has taken every galaxy the same amount of time to move from a common starting position to its current position. Just as the Big Bang provided for the foundation of the universe, Hubbles (sic) observations provided for the foundation of the Big Bang theory.
Here's a question to ponder; if the universe is both all there is, and is expanding post-the Big Bang, what do we call the area outside of the universe?
How do you define "outside" if the Universe is infinite?
How do you define "outside" if the Universe is infinite?
Exactly my point. Is the universe all there is or isn't it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
