Astronomers-Just-Saw-Farther-Back-In-Time

[pantheory]

This link is complements of 'furball' who first placed this link in the news-and-current-events section.  Then with this acknowledgement I put it also in this section.

 

astronomers-just-saw-farther-back-in-time

 

This news report is interesting not only because it is the farthest claimed galaxy ever observed, but also because such distant galaxies are always surprising in the context of the Big Bang model, but because they have been a mandatory requirement for nearly 3/4 of a century now (since the existence of other galaxies outside the Milky Way were realized) for Steady State and older universe cosmological models including my own.

 

Some of the relevant quotes concerning my statement above within the article are:

 

..............The finding shattered what’s known as the “cosmic distance record,” illuminating a point in time that scientists once thought could never be seen with current technology.

 

“We’ve taken a major step back in time, beyond what we’d ever expected to be able to do with Hubble,”  Yale University astrophysicist Pascal Oesch,  the lead author... (stated).

 

 

Previously, the highest redshift number assigned to a galaxy was 8.68 — meaning it existed some 13.2 billion years in the past.

GN-z11’s redshift number is 11.1.

 

 

The researchers say that the existence of such a hot and active galaxy shows how little they know about the universe’s (supposed) toddler years. Marijn Franx, a co-author from the University of Leiden, noted in the statement that previous research suggested that such a thing wasn’t possible.

 

How exactly the brilliant GN-z11 was created “remains somewhat of a mystery for now,” added his colleague Ivo Labbe.

There is some skepticism about GN-z11’s age from other scientists.

 

 

Ellis write..... that those light signatures are “noisier and harder to interpret,” and that for GN-z11 to be visible it would have to be three times brighter than typical galaxies (of our time).

 

Oesch responded that his team made sure “this was as clean as possible a measurement,” and noted that the technique he used is now becoming standard.

 

 

(bold and parenthesis have been added to quotes above)

 

Again, quotes above and embolden text indicate scientific surprises based upon the Big Bang model. On the other hand such observations are required observations of steady state and much-older-universe models. For older, or infinite universe models, distances would be only limited to the line-of-sight clarity of space between galaxies and us, and the capability of the telescope or radio-scope.

[Thought2Much]

"...they have been a mandatory requirement for nearly 3/4 of a century now (since the existence of other galaxies outside the Milky Way were realized) for Steady State and older universe cosmological models including my own."

 

You're not a scientist, Forrest. No one cares about your "theory." You have no insight to provide to the scientific community. Go try to sell your bullshit somewhere else.

[bornagainathiest]

Yes, GN-z11 is a toddler.

 

Not a mature and evolved galaxy.

 

The researchers say that the existence of such a hot and active galaxy shows how little they know about the universe’s toddler years.

[bornagainathiest]

The whole article, with appropriate comments on the youthfulness of this galaxy.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To look through the lens of a telescope is to peer back in time.

The light we view through it has spent hundreds, millions, even billions of years crossing the vastness of space to reach us, carrying with it images of things that happened long ago.

On Thursday, astronomers at the Hubble Space Telescope announced that they’d seen back farther than they ever have before, to a galaxy 13.4 billion light years away in a time when the universe was just past its infancy.

The finding shattered what’s known as the “cosmic distance record,” illuminating a point in time that scientists once thought could never be seen with current technology.

“We’ve taken a major step back in time, beyond what we’d ever expected to be able to do with Hubble,” Yale University astrophysicist Pascal Oesch, the lead author of the study, said in a statement.

The galaxy, unpoetically named GN-z11, appears as an unremarkable, fuzzy, dark red splotch when it’s magnified from an image taken by the Hubble Telescope. But by measuring a phenomenon known as redshift, Oesch and his colleagues were able to look back in time to when the galaxy was brilliantly blue and incredibly hot, bursting with brand new stars that formed at a frenetic rate.

 

Mature and evolved galaxies do not form brand new stars at a frenetic rate.  Very young galaxies do.

 

“It really is star bursting,” study co-author Gabriel Brammer, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute, told the Associated Press.

Redshift explains GN-z11’s dull crimson coloring: Because the universe is expanding, every object we see through a telescope is actually moving away from us. And as they move, the waves of light they emit stretch out, shifting in color from blue, which has a relatively short wavelength, down to red, whose waves are long. The phenomenon isn’t so different from the way the sound of a train deepens as it chugs away from the listener.

By measuring the degree of redshift, scientists can figure out how long light has been traveling to us through space, and thereby how long ago the thing that they’re looking at existed. Previously, the highest redshift number assigned to a galaxy was 8.68 — meaning it existed some 13.2 billion years in the past.

GN-z11’s redshift number is 11.1.

This means that the galaxy was around just 400 million years after the Big Bang — no time at all, in cosmic terms — to a period that is 97 percent of the way to the universe’s very beginnings.

(A note on time and distance: Light years are a measure of distance — how far light can travel in a year. But cases like this, they are an indicator of age. Since the light from GN-z11 has traveled 13.4 billion years to reach us, that means it’s been traveling for 13.4 billion years, so its source must be 13.4 billion years old.)

The universe was still a toddler at that stage — hazy, cold and shrouded in a fog of hydrogen gas.

But the stars in GN-z11 and other galaxies like it were fast-growing giants that would have swiftly heated things up, “frying” the gas around them, the scientists told the BBC. And new ones were popping out all the time; GN-z11 formed stars at a rate 20 times faster than our own Milky Way.

 

Mature and evolved galaxies do not form stars at rates 20 times faster than the Milky Way.  Very young ones do.

 

For a brief time, they burned brilliantly. And then they burned out.

The researchers say that the existence of such a hot and active galaxy shows how little they know about the universe’s toddler years. Marijn Franx, a co-author from the University of Leiden, noted in the statement that previous research suggested that such a thing wasn’t possible.

How exactly the brilliant GN-z11 was created “remains somewhat of a mystery for now,” added his colleague Ivo Labbe.

There is some skepticism about GN-z11’s age from other scientists. Speaking to theAP, Richard Ellis, an astronomer at the European Southern Observatory who found the previous record-holder for farthest galaxy ever seen, noted that the astronomers studied a spectrum of light that’s seen as less reliable.

Ellis wrote in an email that those light signatures are “noisier and harder to interpret,” and that for GN-z11 to be visible it would have to be three times brighter than typical galaxies.

Oesch responded that his team made sure “this was as clean as possible a measurement,” and noted that the technique he used is now becoming standard.

This will probably stand as one of Hubble’s last big accomplishments and almost certainly its most distant find. The decades-old behemoth hasn’t been repaired since 2009, and will likely be retired after NASA launches its new space telescope, the James Webb, in 2018.

Exactly how that happens is still up in the air, so to speak. The telescope could be booted into a higher “parking orbit,” where it will float for centuries as yet another piece of space junk. Or it might be summoned back to Earth via a robotic craft, which would guide it on a fiery descent into the Pacific Ocean.

But both options are still years away. If anything, Oesch said, the new find shows that after more than two decades aloft, Hubble has still got it.

“Hubble has proven once again, even after almost 26 years in space, just how special it is,” he told the BBC. “When the telescope was launched we were investigating galaxies a little over half-way back in cosmic history. Now, we’re going 97 percent of the way back. It really is a tremendous achievement.”

[pantheory]

"...they have been a mandatory requirement for nearly 3/4 of a century now (since the existence of other galaxies outside the Milky Way were realized) for Steady State and older universe cosmological models including my own."

 

You're not a scientist, Forrest. No one cares about your "theory." You have no insight to provide to the scientific community. Go try to sell your bullshit somewhere else.

 

My above statement is based upon simple logic and knowledge of beginning astronomy.  If the cosmological model being discussed is of a much older universe, or of an infinite universe model like the very well-known steady state models of the 1960's, then no matter how far back in time one looks he will see galaxies as big and as old (or older) as the Milky Way. In the Big Bang model at such distances there should only exist very young, small, bright, blue galaxies in the beginnings of the star formation processes of the beginning universe.

 

I have been doing related scientific work and research, writing and publishing papers with others, traveling to conference in astronomy and cosmology etc. (and medical) for more than 40 years now.

 

Here is a link to a brief summary of my theories at Rational Wiki for any that my be interested: The Pan Theory (5.30)

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

[pantheory]

Yes, GN-z11 is a toddler.

 

Not a mature and evolved galaxy.

 

The researchers say that the existence of such a hot and active galaxy shows how little they know about the universe’s toddler years.

 

As you know, all observations made are interpreted according to the Big Bang model. The aspects of observations that cannot be disguised which could be interpreted differently, are embolden above.

 

As you might recall, this is the major prediction of all steady state theories totally contrary to the BB model. The prediction being:

 

One will always see in the observable universe, very large, ever-older galaxies at the farthest reaches and capabilities of observation, contrary to predictions of the Big Bang model. 

 

To describe a galaxy as being "in its toddler years" is not based upon observational evidence, at those distances it must be a "toddler" galaxy based upon the Big Bang model.

 

Here is my most recent paper on this subject.

 

http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

 

Scan down to section 1.5 of the paper followed by related galaxy observations.

[Thought2Much]

 

"...they have been a mandatory requirement for nearly 3/4 of a century now (since the existence of other galaxies outside the Milky Way were realized) for Steady State and older universe cosmological models including my own."

 

You're not a scientist, Forrest. No one cares about your "theory." You have no insight to provide to the scientific community. Go try to sell your bullshit somewhere else.

 

My above statement is based upon simple logic and knowledge of beginning astronomy.  If the cosmological model being discussed is of a much older universe, or of an infinite universe model like the very well-known steady state models of the 1960's, then no matter how far back in time one looks he will see galaxies as big and as old (or older) as the Milky Way. In the Big Bang model at such distances there should only exist very young, small, bright, blue galaxies in the beginnings of the star formation processes of the beginning universe.

 

I have been doing related scientific work and research, writing and publishing papers with others, traveling to conference in astronomy and cosmology etc. (and medical) for more than 40 years now.

 

Here is a link to a brief summary of my theories at Rational Wiki: The Pan Theory (5.30)

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

 

 

Forrest, that is you continuing to sell your bullshit here. Fuck off.

 

You've just lucked out here because you've finally found a place where the mods don't give a shit if members spout bullshit. You've managed to get yourself banned from places that actually talk about real science, and don't allow pseudoscientific bullshit.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Yes, GN-z11 is a toddler.

 

Not a mature and evolved galaxy.

 

The researchers say that the existence of such a hot and active galaxy shows how little they know about the universe’s toddler years.

 

As you know, all observations made are interpreted according to the Big Bang model. The aspects of observations that cannot be disguised which could be interpreted differently, are embolden above.

 

As you might recall, this is the major prediction of all steady state theories totally contrary to the BB model. The prediction being:

 

One will always see in the observable universe, very large, ever-older galaxies at the farthest reaches and capabilities of observation, contrary to predictions of the Big Bang model. 

 

To describe a galaxy as being "in its toddler years" is not based upon observational evidence, at those distances it must be a "toddler" galaxy based upon the Big Bang model.

 

Here is my most recent paper on it:

 

http://www.aijcrnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_9_September_2014/2.pdf

 

Scan down to section 1.5 of the paper followed by related galaxy observations.

 

 

Since you've agreed to give a fair and balanced account of scientific articles Pantheory, it now falls to you to describe this new finding in the context of Big Bang cosmology, which is exactly how it is intended to be read.

 

Please do so with adding any personal caveats or without any equivocations or conditions.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

 

 

Since you've agreed to give a fair and balanced account of scientific articles Pantheory, it now falls to you to describe this new finding in the context of Big Bang cosmology, which is exactly how it is intended to be read.

 

Please do so with adding any personal caveats or without any equivocations or conditions.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

 

To most astronomers this is a valuable and important observation, first because it shattered the “cosmic distance record,” and in the absence of apparent foreground lensing that distorts images and therefore could distort interpretations. Secondly because they believe it is a good indicator of distance observations that can still be achieved with the Hubble telescope, and as a preview to similar observations that they expect will be made and observed with the James Webb Telescope, when is up and running.

 

Expecting to see smaller newly-forming galaxies in the making,  it seemed exciting for these astronomers to see a very bright seemingly fully-formed galaxy with a plethora of fully formed stars, having an almost incomparable brightness at this distance.  New astronomical methods and equipment were used for these observations which seem to promise a number of continuing years of even better observations by the Hubble.

 

"How exactly the brilliant (galaxy) GN-z11 was created remains somewhat of a mystery for now,” added one of the astronomers. Finding new discoveries and unexpected observations is part of the excitement and one of the most interesting aspects of astronomy for most astronomers.

 

Astronomers believe this observation is closer to a Big Bang beginning than any other galaxy they were ever able to closely observe and analyze.

[rjn]

Why the hostility T2M?

[Thought2Much]

Why the hostility T2M?

 

It's a long story. Basically, he goes from forum to forum touting his bullshit alternative cosmological "theory," trying to pass himself off as a scientist. He's been banned from several forums that discuss actual science, and he's wandered his way into a place where he's found he won't get banned for preaching his "theory." He can't accept mainstream cosmology, and insists that his "theory" is better, but without anything to back it up.

 

Even though he claims to be a scientist, for some reason he has to try to sell his ideas to non-scientists to make himself feel better.

 

He's as much of a bullshit artist as a prosperity gospel preacher or a creationist.

 

He also at one point promised not to promote his "theory" here on Ex-C, yet he still does it, making him a liar. He probably does it here because he's not allowed to promote it on actual science boards.

[rjn]

I saw steady state being mentioned. It's an interesting idea, but AFAIK, it was discarded long ago. Is that one of the bullshit ideas you oppose? Not that I know more than what's taught in high school classes regarding these things, if even that.

[pantheory]

 

Why the hostility T2M?

 

................... He can't accept mainstream cosmology, and insists that his "theory" is better, but without anything to back it up.

 

Even though he claims to be a scientist, for some reason he has to try to sell his ideas to non-scientists to make himself feel better...........................................

 

He also at one point promised not to promote his "theory" here on Ex-C, yet he still does it....................................

(bold added)

your quote:

 

"....without anything to back it up"

It seems that there are many parts of my postings that you have not read or understood. In case you don't know it there is a book of my theories online free, some 380 pages long that has taken 40 years of study, research, conferences, writing etc., besides publishing a number of scientific papers in cooperation with others, each involving many months of research, published in a number of recognized scientific journals.

 

I only talk of my theories in this forum when those that become aware of them ask questions, then only if they are subject-related and details are needed to answer these questions, or when false assertions or negative comments are made that are subject related and I think a reply is justified to counter the wrong assertion.  In this thread, for instance, I have mentioned steady-state models in general, that most or all of them propose a much older or infinite aged universe. There have been no details of my own theory mentioned in this or any of my previous postings in this forum, only when related questions are asked about them, and then only when it is subject related. If conversations turn negative and are not subject related, I stop replying.

 

Several times a year observations in cosmology seem baffling to mainstream astronomers and cosmologists:

dark matter, dark energy, the Inflation hypothesis have been some of the biggest outcomes of these quandaries.

 

For some cosmological models, all three of the above hypothesis are easily explained by simpler theory, and observations justifying the theories and answers can be, and have been given in some cases.

 

In the case of this news article in the OP above, it was stated in the article that mainsteam scientists seemed perplexed by the size and brightness of the observed galaxy. Then I mentioned that such observations are exactly what older-universe models require for their validity,  and has been predicted by them for more than a half century.  Again nothing concerning my own model or theories was discussed excepting for the mention that my model likewise proposes an older universe so this observation would simply be another confirmation of theory. 

[pantheory]

I saw steady state being mentioned. It's an interesting idea, but AFAIK, it was discarded long ago. Is that one of the bullshit ideas you oppose? Not that I know more than what's taught in high school classes regarding these things, if even that.

 

Yes, the most well-known steady state models are no longer considered valid by mainsteam cosmologists but there have been many other models less well-known that are still promoted.

 

From Rational Wiki, link below, are explanations of the steady state models and a sampling of almost countless new cosmology proposals in the last half century. Few of these models can readily be disproved. Few people including mainstream theorists, have ever heard of or read about most these theories/ models. 

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alternative_cosmology

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Since you've agreed to give a fair and balanced account of scientific articles Pantheory, it now falls to you to describe this new finding in the context of Big Bang cosmology, which is exactly how it is intended to be read.

 

Please do so with adding any personal caveats or without any equivocations or conditions.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

 

To most astronomers this is a valuable and important observation, first because it shattered the “cosmic distance record,” and in the absence of apparent foreground lensing that distorts images and therefore could distort interpretations. Secondly because they believe it is a good indicator of distance observations that can still be achieved with the Hubble telescope, and as a preview to similar observations that they expect will be made and observed with the James Webb Telescope, when is up and running.

 

Expecting to see smaller newly-forming galaxies in the making,  it seemed exciting for these astronomers to see a very bright seemingly fully-formed galaxy with a plethora of fully formed stars, having an almost incomparable brightness at this distance.  New astronomical methods and equipment were used for these observations which seem to promise a number of continuing years of even better observations by the Hubble.

 

"How exactly the brilliant (galaxy) GN-z11 was created remains somewhat of a mystery for now,” added one of the astronomers. Finding new discoveries and unexpected observations is part of the excitement and one of the most interesting aspects of astronomy for most astronomers.

 

Astronomers believe this observation is closer to a Big Bang beginning than any other galaxy they were ever able to closely observe and analyze.

 

 

I've removed your remark about GN-z11 being "seemingly fully formed", Pantheory.

 

These astronomers saw a smaller, newly-forming galaxy, not a  fully-formed and evolved one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11

 

GN-z11 is twenty-five times smaller than the Milky Way, has 1% of the Milky Way galaxy's mass, and is forming stars at a rate about twenty times faster than the Milky Way galaxy does today.^[9] With a stellar age estimated at 40 million years, it appears the galaxy formed its stars relatively rapidly.^[2] The fact that a galaxy so massive existed, so soon after the first stars started to form, is a challenge for some current theoretical models on the origin of galaxies.^[9]

 

A fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy is not twenty-five times smaller than the fully-formed, mature and evolved Milky Way.

 

A fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy does not have 1% of the the Milky Way's mass.

 

A fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy does not produce new stars at 20 times the rate of the Milky Way.

 

Fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxies are not small, densely-packed concentrations of stars that are rapidly producing new stars.

 

Fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxies are large, thinly-spread systems with slow star formation rates.

.

.

.

After our seemingly-fruitful private discussion about the balanced presentation of science articles in this sub-forum, I must say that I'm very disappointed that you are trying to misrepresent this discovery in a way that gives credibility to your theory.  

 

BAA.

[pantheory]

 

 

 

 

Since you've agreed to give a fair and balanced account of scientific articles Pantheory, it now falls to you to describe this new finding in the context of Big Bang cosmology, which is exactly how it is intended to be read.

 

Please do so with adding any personal caveats or without any equivocations or conditions.

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

 

 

To most astronomers this is a valuable and important observation, first because it shattered the “cosmic distance record,” and in the absence of apparent foreground lensing that distorts images and therefore could distort interpretations. Secondly because they believe it is a good indicator of distance observations that can still be achieved with the Hubble telescope, and as a preview to similar observations that they expect will be made and observed with the James Webb Telescope, when is up and running.

 

Expecting to see smaller newly-forming galaxies in the making,  it seemed exciting for these astronomers to see a very bright seemingly fully-formed galaxy with a plethora of fully formed stars, having an almost incomparable brightness at this distance.  New astronomical methods and equipment were used for these observations which seem to promise a number of continuing years of even better observations by the Hubble.

 

"How exactly the brilliant (galaxy) GN-z11 was created remains somewhat of a mystery for now,” added one of the astronomers. Finding new discoveries and unexpected observations is part of the excitement and one of the most interesting aspects of astronomy for most astronomers.

 

Astronomers believe this observation is closer to a Big Bang beginning than any other galaxy they were ever able to closely observe and analyze.

 

 

I've removed your remark about GN-z11 being "seemingly fully formed", Pantheory.

 

These astronomers saw a smaller, newly-forming galaxy, not a  fully-formed and evolved one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11

 

GN-z11 is twenty-five times smaller than the Milky Way, has 1% of the Milky Way galaxy's mass, and is forming stars at a rate about twenty times faster than the Milky Way galaxy does today.^[9] With a stellar age estimated at 40 million years, it appears the galaxy formed its stars relatively rapidly.^[2] The fact that a galaxy so massive existed, so soon after the first stars started to form, is a challenge for some current theoretical models on the origin of galaxies.^[9]

 

A fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy is not twenty-five times smaller than the fully-formed, mature and evolved Milky Way.

 

A fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy does not have 1% of the the Milky Way's mass.

 

A fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy does not produce new stars at 20 times the rate of the Milky Way.

 

Fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxies are not small, densely-packed concentrations of stars that are rapidly producing new stars.

 

Fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxies are large, thinly-spread systems with slow star formation rates.

.

.

.

After our seemingly-fruitful private discussion about the balanced presentation of science articles in this sub-forum, I must say that I'm very disappointed that you are trying to misrepresent this discovery in a way that gives credibility to your theory.  

 

BAA.

 

 

Look at the original link I posted. It does not say that the galaxy's size is smaller than the Milky Way. Believe me or not, this interpretation of wiki is just a BB interpretation of the observation, not fact. As you may know all observations are interpreted within the framework of theory, in this case the BB model. 

 

There is always, concerning the local universe, a direct correlation between the brightness of a galaxy and its mass. Look at the link below and scroll down to the chart on the link.

 

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l7_p3.html

 

(and quote from the OP link)

 

......those light signatures are “noisier and harder to interpret,” and that for GN-z11 to be visible it would have to be three times brighter than typical galaxies.

 

 

 

As luminosity of a galaxy goes up so does a galaxy's mass. In the local universe this is a rule. That galaxies were different in the past is a Big Bang premise within which all observations are presently interpreted.

 

That Wiki stated that the galaxy has less mass than the Milky Way is just one interpretation of their observation(s) based upon the Big Bang model, not a separate analysis of any observation they made or necessarily a valid conclusion.

 

On the other hand, obviously they believe their own conclusions, but that interpretation (of mass) was not stated/ mentioned in the OP link, therefore I could not comment on it. But yes, my comment concerning "seemingly fully formed" was based upon my interpretation and not identified as such (where instead I could have written IMO), so it is better off deleted for that reason -- as you did in your reply.

[bornagainathiest]

No need to look at the link you posted, Pantheory.

 

Instead, let's go right to the original source, the paper submitted by Oesch et al, which can be found here... http://arxiv.org/pdf/1603.00461.pdf

 

4.1. Physical Properties of GN-z11

 

Despite being the most distant known galaxy, GN-z11 is relatively bright and reliably detected in both IRAC 3.6 and 4.5 µm bands from the S-CANDELS survey (Ashby et al. 2015).

This provides a sampling of its restframe UV spectral energy distribution and even partially covers the rest-frame optical wavelengths in the IRAC 4.5 µm band (see Figure 6).

The photometry of GN-z11 is consistent with a spectral energy distribution (SED) of log M/M ∼ 9 using standard templates (Bruzual & Charlot 2003, see appendix). 

The UV continuum is relatively blue with a UV spectral slope β = −2.5±0.2 as derived from a powerlaw fit to the H160, K, and [3.6] fluxes only, indicating very little dust extinction (see also Wilkins et al. 2016).

Together with the absence of a strong Balmer break, this is consistent with a young stellar age of this galaxy.

The best fit age is only 40 Myr (< 110 Myr at 1σ). GN-z11 thus formed its stars relatively rapidly.

The inferred star-formation rate is 24±10 M/yr.

All the inferred physical parameters for GN-z11 are summarized in Table 2.

Overall, our results show that galaxy build-up was well underway at ∼ 400 Myr after the Big Bang.

 

Look like the Hubble scientists agree with Wikipedia.

Their data is to be interpreted within the framework of Big Bang cosmology.  That is why they stress the role of inference in their data.  The inferences they make are only good within Big Bang cosmology.  Take their data out of this framework and you immediately invalidate their inferences and call their conclusions into question.  Yes, you have the freedom to do this... but you also agreed with me that you would present a fair and balanced account of scientific articles like this.  Therefore Pantheory, it falls to you to show both sides of the argument.  To explain to the readers your p.o.v. AND to also explain to them that the Hubble scientists' inferences and conclusions are entirely valid within the context of Big Bang cosmology

 

Please satisfy these conditions, as per your agreement with me.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

And it also looks like NASA agrees with the Hubble scientists and Wikipedia.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/hubble-team-breaks-cosmic-distance-record

 

"This surprisingly bright infant galaxy, named GN-z11, is seen as it was 13.4 billion years in the past, just 400 million years after the Big Bang." 

 

An infant galaxy is not a fully-formed, mature and evolved galaxy.

 

"The combination of Hubble’s and Spitzer’s imaging reveals that GN-z11 is 25 times smaller than the Milky Way and has just one percent of our galaxy’s mass in stars. However, the newborn GN-z11 is growing fast, forming stars at a rate about 20 times greater than our galaxy does today. This makes an extremely remote galaxy bright enough for astronomers to find and perform detailed observations with both Hubble and Spitzer."

 

And here is a graphic showing GN-z11 in it's evolutionary context.

 

 

Primitive, very young proto-galaxies occupy the furthest reaches of time on the right and modern galaxies that are mature, fully-formed and highly evolved on the left, occupying the most recent epochs of cosmic time.

 

This graphic clearly shows that GN-z11 cannot be accorded the status of 'fully-formed'.