Telescopic

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@walterpthefirst, could you please give us an update on the telescope that got his by a meteor?  Is it still functional?  Can the data transmitted be trusted?

[sdelsolray]

One of the 18 mirrors in the JWST was hit by a micrometoroid.  The mirror's alignment was readjusted to spec.  All is well.  Such collisions are expected.

 

https://blogs.nasa.gov/webb/2022/06/08/webb-engineered-to-endure-micrometeoroid-impacts/

 

[pantheory]

11 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@walterpthefirst, could you please give us an update on the telescope that got his by a meteor?  Is it still functional?  Can the data transmitted be trusted?

 

I'm sure waltethefirst will soon weigh in.

 

“Could you please give us an update on the telescope that got hit by a meteor?  Is it still functional?”

The James Webb?

Meteor:  a small body of matter from outer space that enters the earth's atmosphere, becoming incandescent as a result of friction and appearing as a streak of light.

Meteorite:  a meteor that either strikes the Earth or burns up in its atmosphere.

Asteroid:  Primarily a rocky body orbiting the sun, either solid or loosely packed conglomerates. A Large number of these reside in an orbit between the orbits of planets Mars and Jupiter, called the asteroid belt. Others have more eccentric orbits, some unrelated to the asteroid belt orbit. And a few pass close to the Earth and can even enter the Earth’s atmosphere at which time they are called a meteors.  Asteroid-belt asteroids can be as large as 600 miles (1,000 km) across (Ceres, also called a planetoid), and others go down to the size of dust particles;  there is no defined minimum size to them.

Asteroids that strike the Earth are called meteorites, and those that pass close enough or through our atmosphere are called meteors. They don’t have to be that big to become catastrophic. The one that assertively killed off the dinosaurs was thought to be no bigger than 10-15 miles in diameter.

Comet:  A comet is a type of asteroid that is made up primarily of water and dust particles, loosely packed, often called a dirty snowball. The largest are only a few miles in diameter not including their vapor trail (tale). Those of even a few miles in diameter could be catastrophic if they struck the Earth. Their tail always faces the sun regardless the direction or velocity of the comet. They are called comets instead of asteroids when they come close enough to the sun to have a visible tale primarily of water vapor. Many of the comets that we are familiar with originated from an orbit beyond Pluto called the Kuiper Belt. But the majority originate from an orbit even much farther out than that called the Oort Cloud, much of which also lies outside the orbital plane of the solar system.

Meteoroid:  An asteroid having a near-Earth orbit.  

Earth Longrangian asteroid.  Asteroids that have the same orbit as the Earth but are generally at “stationary” points relative to the Earth called our Longrangian points.

Asteroids - NASA Solar System Exploration

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/asteroids-comets-and-meteors/asteroids/exploration/?page=0&per_page=10&order=launch_date+desc%2Ctitle+asc&search=&tags=Asteroids&category=33

“Japan's Hayabusa2 was launched in December 2014 on a six-year voyage to study asteroid Ryugu, and to collect samples to bring back to Earth for analysis. Hayabusa2 arrived at the asteroid in June 2018. The spacecraft deployed rovers and landers onto Ryugu’s surface, and collected a sample. Hayabusa2 delivered the asteroid sample to Earth on Dec. 6, 2020.”

The Greatest Asteroid Missions of all Time (to date).

https://www.space.com/41052-best-asteroid-encounters-ever.html

Present and Future Missions  (also link)

 

• Lucy - Flyby Mission to Multiple Trojan Asteroids (2021)
• NEA Scout - Flyby CubeSat Mission to Near Earth Asteroid (2021)
• Psyche - Orbital Mission to Main Belt Asteroid 16 Psyche (2022)
• Hera - Follow-up Mission to Asteroids Didymos and Dimorphos(2024)

NASA Spacecraft Will Visit Apophis, Once Earth’s Deadliest Asteroid Threat

After delivering extraterrestrial samples to Earth in 2023, OSIRIS-REx will embark on an extended mission to a potentially planet-threatening space rock.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-spacecraft-will-visit-apophis-once-earth-rsquo-s-deadliest-asteroid-threat/

NASA gives green light for OSIRIS-REx spacecraft to visit another asteroidThe extended mission, dubbed OSIRIS-APEX, will study the near-Earth asteroid Apophis, which will have a close encounter with Earth in 2029.

https://news.arizona.edu/story/nasa-gives-green-light-osiris-rex-spacecraft-visit-another-asteroid

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

sdelsolray got it right, Prof.

 

But here's a 2017 article that might prove relevant.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/how-hardy-is-webb-a-qa-about-the-toughness-of-nasa-s-webb-telescope

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Thanks guys.

[LogicalFallacy]

What's the chances of a telescope that is miniscule on a galactic scale being hit by flying space rocks? (Apparently 100% at the moment)

[pantheory]

9 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

What's the chances of a telescope that is miniscule on a galactic scale being hit by flying space rocks? (Apparently 100% at the moment)

 

Howdy LogicalFallacy,

 

The problem is that the James Webb is in the plane of the solar system, like the Earth, at one of the Earth's Lagrangian points. the same distance from the sun as our Earth. There are a great many small asteroids at this position in our solar system as can been seen in our every-night skies as meteorites.  The estimated size of this very small space rock they called "a bigger than expected micrometerod," maybe the size, force, and damage of a pellet from a pellet gun (about twice the size of a BB).  in interstellar space there would be far fewer such asteroids, and in intergalactic space, as you suggest, there would be almost none at all. But the plane of our solar system is a busy place full of such objects, and the mirror size of the James Webb is much bigger than the Hubble lens or any other telescope that we have put out there.

 

They probably expected a number of hits of the James Webb mirror segments over time, but probably none this soon, and very few causing greater damage than a BB.

[alreadyGone]

Given a telescope of sufficient power and resolution, what is the probability that we will be peering out to the edge of the universe only to see a God standing around with a box of tools used to create planets, stars, and asteroids?

 

Or, given such an instrument, how long before we finally put to rest the question of whether the universe has/had a beginning, and therefor an eventual end?  Or neither?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

27 minutes ago, alreadyGone said:

Given a telescope of sufficient power and resolution, what is the probability that we will be peering out to the edge of the universe only to see a God standing around with a box of tools used to create planets, stars, and asteroids?

 

Or, given such an instrument, how long before we finally put to rest the question of whether the universe has/had a beginning, and therefor an eventual end? 

 

 

 

It depends on who you ask, aG.

 

If you ask Pantheory, he'll give you answer according to his his own personal cosmology.

 

Or I could supply you with some answers that agree with the currently accepted cosmological model.

 

Please note that I just happen to be familiar with that model.

 

However, the fact that I'm au fait with it doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with it.

 

For now I'm reserving judgment until more and better data comes in.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[alreadyGone]

Thank you Walter..

It's something to hope for.

 

That, and perhaps peace in my lifetime.

 

[pantheory]

22 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

Given a telescope of sufficient power and resolution, what is the probability that we will be peering out to the edge of the universe only to see a God standing around with a box of tools used to create planets, stars, and asteroids?

 

Or, given such an instrument, how long before we finally put to rest the question of whether the universe has/had a beginning, and therefor an eventual end?  Or neither?

 

 

Howdy alreadyGone,

 

Yup, as Walter explained, the answers to your questions depend upon who you are asking. Religious folk believe that God is spiritual and therefore cannot be seen unless he wants to be seen.

 

Mainstream science theory, the Big Bang, asserts that the beginning universe should look very different in the very distant past, with young, newly forming stars and galaxies. I expect that about 97% or more of astronomers and cosmologists believe this will happen. Another roughly 3% IMO believe the universe is either older or infinite in age and size, and that they will see the same things with the James Webb Space telescope that they saw with the Hubble telescope at even much further distances of the universe. 

 

I am a cosmologist of sorts and have written a scientific research paper on this matter that I have just begun to submit for Publication.  I am in the minority that believes in a much older universe than what present theory could permit.

 

The title of my paper is

The Surprising and unexpected discoveries the James Webb Space Telescope will likely make

based upon our research

What the paper essentially says, based upon almost countless past observations and numerous referrences, is that the James Webb will see exactly the same things the Hubble saw in the very most distant universe, very different from mainstream predictions. The problem will be interpretations of the observations. If Astronomers are using the wrong theory to interpret observations, which they will be if the Big Bang theory is wrong, data and calculations can be wrongly interpreted, where it's more difficult to misinterpret photographs without criticism.  Below you will find an example of the kinds of observations the James Webb will be seeing that are very contrary to mainstream theory IMO.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/04/220407101043.htm

Although the above is an example of a large mature-looking galaxy in the most-distant past -- like the Milky Way, most of the James Webb observations will look just like galaxies in our own backyard IMHO.

"... given such an instrument, how long before we finally put to rest the question of whether the universe has/had a beginning, and therefore an eventual end?  Or neither?"

Once through a mound of misinterpretations, my guess is that it will take them 4 years or less to figure out that the Big Bang theory is almost entirely wrong, and that the universe is far older. But they will not be able to determine how old the universe actually is, or whether its age is infinite, which I personally do not believe. As to a beginning to the universe, my model also proposes a beginning. As to the end of the universe such as the Big Freeze, such and end primarily relates to the Big Bang theory only, not to the many kinds of steady-state theories.

https://scienceline.org/2022/02/the-icy-fate-of-the-universe/

[pantheory]

20 hours ago, alreadyGone said:

Thank you Walter..

It's something to hope for.

 

That, and perhaps peace in my lifetime.

 

 

World Peace in our lifetime? Yeah, local skirmishes will never end but as to world wars, despite the present Ukraine problem, I am  quite optimistic that another work war will not happen for a long while, and not in my remaining lifetime which I expect will be much shorter than yours 

[walterpthefirst]

From the sciencedaily article cited by Pantheory...

 

At first, the researchers assumed HD1 was a standard starburst galaxy, a galaxy that is creating stars at a high rate. But after calculating how many stars HD1 was producing, they obtained "an incredible rate -- HD1 would be forming more than 100 stars every single year. This is at least 10 times higher than what we expect for these galaxies."

 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/milkyway_seven.html

 

Milky Way Churns Out Seven New Stars Per Year, Scientists Say

 

 

Pantheory, could you please explain the disparity of star-forming rates between HD1 (more than 100 per annum) and the Milky Way (7 per annum) if HD1 if both galaxies are large and mature-looking, as you claim?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

From the sciencedaily article cited by Pantheory...

 

At first, the researchers assumed HD1 was a standard starburst galaxy, a galaxy that is creating stars at a high rate. But after calculating how many stars HD1 was producing, they obtained "an incredible rate -- HD1 would be forming more than 100 stars every single year. This is at least 10 times higher than what we expect for these galaxies."

 

 

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/milkyway_seven.html

 

Milky Way Churns Out Seven New Stars Per Year, Scientists Say

 

 

Pantheory, could you please explain the disparity of star-forming rates between HD1 (more than 100 per annum) and the Milky Way (7 per annum) if HD1 if both galaxies are large and mature-looking, as you claim?

 

Thank you,

 

 

 

 

Here is everything I have on that galaxy and observations:

Old-appearing galaxy at the greatest observable distance

This most distant and very recent observation exemplifies this problem: An international team of astronomers, including researchers at the Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian, have observed the most distant galaxy ever seen to date, with a redshift of z > 12. This discovery was published April 2022 in the Astrophysical Journal, with an accompanying paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters.

This large, fully formed galaxy was named HD1, which was calculated to be 13.5 billion light-years away. Scientists have just begun to speculate exactly what the galaxy might consist of and how such a large fully formed galaxy could exist at such an early time of the universe. According to their statement, the same team said they will soon observe HD1 with the James Webb Space Telescope to further clarify their observations and calculations.

The team has initially proposed two possible ideas concerning this galaxy’s excessive brightness. The first is that HD1 may be forming very large, bright first generation stars at a very high rate and could be home to many Population III stars. The second idea is that HD1 may contain a super-massive central black hole calculated as being more than 4 times more massive than the Milky Way’s central galactic black hole, Sagittarius A.  

 

The lead author of this study said: "Answering questions about the nature of a source so far away, can be challenging," says Fabio Pacucci, of the MNRAS study. Determining the causes of this galaxy’s appearance seems like it could ultimately become “a long game of analysis and exclusion of implausible scenarios," regarding mainstream cosmology.

HD1 is also extremely bright in ultraviolet light, another observation anomaly for such a distant galaxy. To explain this, Pacussi said: "some (unexpected) energetic processes are occurring there or, better yet, did occur (many) billions of years ago."

 

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/farthest-galaxy/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomers-spot-most-distant-galaxy-yet-13-5-billion-light-years-from-earth/

 

At first, researchers thought HD1 was a large starburst galaxy, a galaxy that is creating stars at a very high rate. From their calculations of how many stars HD1 appears to be producing based upon the galaxy’s brightness, “HD1 would have to be forming more than 100 stars every single year. This rate is at least 10 times higher than what we expect for these galaxies" ⁽¹⁾. If their interpretations are correct, they speculate that galaxies could have been different in the beginning universe. If not, this observation seems to contradict mainstream cosmology, similar to the many more such galaxies that have already been observed at the greatest distances, and the many more we predict will be observed by the James Webb.  

 

Their proposed star forming rate is based upon their speculation which I believe is wrong. Their second speculation concerning the galaxies excessive brightness was  that HD1 may contain a super-massive central black hole calculated as being more than 4 times more massive than the Milky Way’s central galactic black hole, Sagittarius A.  This idea would have nothing to do with the galaxies star producing rate. These are just  two ideas. I believe neither idea is correct however. As the link explains ,they will later be looking at this galaxy with the James Webb. Here is my take on it:

Alternative brightness formula:

The mainstream brightness formula in physics and cosmology is the inverse -square law of light. The light intensity l, is proportional to 1 divided by  d² ;  file:///C:\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg 1/ d²         

The alternative brightness equation involving cosmology which I derived is:  

L =   2.512 log₁₀ [[((z+1).5t -1)).5t + 1](z +1)]

Where ‘L’ is the calculated brightness (luminosity),  ‘z’ is the observed redshift, and ‘t’ is the calculated timeframe involved. This formula is also based upon the diminution of matter rather than the expansion of space. ⁽¹⁴⁾ The diminution of matter asserts that matter and brightnesses from the past, will appear to be brighter than they really were in their own timeframe, because matter would have been larger, and EM radiation more intense, but also involve greater calculated distances.

Walter, of course if astronomers do not have the correct equation and related understandings, they could overestimate distant brightnesses. I know this does not mean much to you but my related research study and paper has all this information, and is being submitted and hopefully will be considered for publication. I also will be preparing a press release for this research study and paper, whereby I could post the link to it here if you are interested.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

10 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

I am a cosmologist of sorts and have written a scientific research paper on this matter that I have just begun to submit for Publication.  I am in the minority that believes in a much older universe than what present theory could permit.

 

Best wishes with your publication.  I am certainly no expert, but also believe the universe is much, much older than what present theory says.  And I also believe the new telescope will see more of the "same old stuff."

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

Best wishes with your publication.  I am certainly no expert, but also believe the universe is much, much older than what present theory says.  And I also believe the new telescope will see more of the "same old stuff."

 

Thanks Weez, that's exactly what I think.   cheers 

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Here is everything I have on that galaxy and observations:

Old-appearing galaxy at the greatest observable distance

This most distant and very recent observation exemplifies this problem: An international team of astronomers, including researchers at the Center for Astrophysics Harvard & Smithsonian, have observed the most distant galaxy ever seen to date, with a redshift of z > 12. This discovery was published April 2022 in the Astrophysical Journal, with an accompanying paper in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters.

This large, fully formed galaxy was named HD1, which was calculated to be 13.5 billion light-years away. Scientists have just begun to speculate exactly what the galaxy might consist of and how such a large fully formed galaxy could exist at such an early time of the universe. According to their statement, the same team said they will soon observe HD1 with the James Webb Space Telescope to further clarify their observations and calculations.

The team has initially proposed two possible ideas concerning this galaxy’s excessive brightness. The first is that HD1 may be forming very large, bright first generation stars at a very high rate and could be home to many Population III stars. The second idea is that HD1 may contain a super-massive central black hole calculated as being more than 4 times more massive than the Milky Way’s central galactic black hole, Sagittarius A.  

 

The lead author of this study said: "Answering questions about the nature of a source so far away, can be challenging," says Fabio Pacucci, of the MNRAS study. Determining the causes of this galaxy’s appearance seems like it could ultimately become “a long game of analysis and exclusion of implausible scenarios," regarding mainstream cosmology.

HD1 is also extremely bright in ultraviolet light, another observation anomaly for such a distant galaxy. To explain this, Pacussi said: "some (unexpected) energetic processes are occurring there or, better yet, did occur (many) billions of years ago."

 

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/farthest-galaxy/

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/astronomers-spot-most-distant-galaxy-yet-13-5-billion-light-years-from-earth/

 

At first, researchers thought HD1 was a large starburst galaxy, a galaxy that is creating stars at a very high rate. From their calculations of how many stars HD1 appears to be producing based upon the galaxy’s brightness, “HD1 would have to be forming more than 100 stars every single year. This rate is at least 10 times higher than what we expect for these galaxies" ⁽¹⁾. If their interpretations are correct, they speculate that galaxies could have been different in the beginning universe. If not, this observation seems to contradict mainstream cosmology, similar to the many more such galaxies that have already been observed at the greatest distances, and the many more we predict will be observed by the James Webb.  

 

Their proposed star forming rate is based upon their speculation which I believe is wrong. Their second speculation concerning the galaxies excessive brightness was  that HD1 may contain a super-massive central black hole calculated as being more than 4 times more massive than the Milky Way’s central galactic black hole, Sagittarius A.  This idea would have nothing to do with the galaxies star producing rate. These are just  two ideas. I believe neither idea is correct however. As the link explains ,they will later be looking at this galaxy with the James Webb. Here is my take on it:

Alternative brightness formula:

The mainstream brightness formula in physics and cosmology is the inverse -square law of light. The light intensity l, is proportional to 1 divided by  d² ;  file:///C:\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image002.jpg 1/ d²         

The alternative brightness equation involving cosmology which I derived is:  

L =   2.512 log₁₀ [[((z+1).5t -1)).5t + 1](z +1)]

Where ‘L’ is the calculated brightness (luminosity),  ‘z’ is the observed redshift, and ‘t’ is the calculated timeframe involved. This formula is also based upon the diminution of matter rather than the expansion of space. ⁽¹⁴⁾ The diminution of matter asserts that matter and brightnesses from the past, will appear to be brighter than they really were in their own timeframe, because matter would have been larger, and EM radiation more intense, but also involve greater calculated distances.

Walter, of course if astronomers do not have the correct equation and related understandings, they could overestimate distant brightnesses. I know this does not mean much to you but my related research study and paper has all this information, and is being submitted and hopefully will be considered for publication. I also will be preparing a press release for this research study and paper, whereby I could post the link to it here if you are interested.

 

I didn't ask you anything about this, Pantheory.

 

You claimed that HD1 and the Milky Way galaxy are both large and mature-looking galaxies.

 

If that's so, then they would both display similar rates of star formation.

 

But the Milky Way's rate of star formation is less than ten times that of HD1.

 

If HD1 is a large and mature-looking galaxy, then why do we not see that same high rate of star formation in the Milky Way?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I didn't ask you anything about this, Pantheory.

 

You claimed that HD1 and the Milky Way galaxy are both large and mature-looking galaxies.

 

If that's so, then they would both display similar rates of star formation.

 

But the Milky Way's rate of star formation is less than ten times that of HD1.

 

If HD1 is a large and mature-looking galaxy, then why do we not see that same high rate of star formation in the Milky Way?

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

You didn't properly read or understand my posting. Read my entire posting above over slowly several times and you will probably understand the answer to your question. If you cannot, I will try to further clarify it for you.

 

One of the main points is simply that because they assert and calculate some idea  doesn't make it true or real. The rate of star formation they calculate was just an "idea" trying to explain the  galaxy's brightness.  The other idea was that the galaxy has a huge central black hole that could also create the observed brightness. Whereby its brightness also could be the result of something different altogether.

 

This part of my posting in particular explains your question:

 

At first, researchers thought HD1 was a large starburst galaxy, a galaxy that is creating stars at a very high rate. From their calculations of how many stars HD1 appears to be producing based upon the galaxy’s brightness, “HD1 would have to be forming more than 100 stars every single year. This rate is at least 10 times higher than what we expect for these galaxies. If their interpretations are correct, they speculate that galaxies could have been different in the beginning universe. If not, this observation seems to contradict mainstream cosmology, similar to the many more such galaxies that have already been observed at the greatest distances, and the many more we predict will be observed by the James Webb.  

 

The proposed star forming rate is based upon one possibility concerning why the galaxy appears so bright. Their second idea and speculation concerning the galaxies excessive brightness was  that HD1 may contain a super-massive central black hole calculated as being more than 4 times more massive than the Milky Way’s central galactic black hole, Sagittarius A.  This second idea they hadconcerning why the galaxy appears so bright would have nothing to do with its star producing rate. These are just  two ideas.they expressed.  I believe neither idea is correct however".        As the link explains , they will later be looking at this galaxy with the James Webb. ------------ to clarify their understanding, ideas, and interpretations of the galaxy.

 

I suspect  this galaxy is much bigger than the Milky Way, and maybe even older.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Pantheory,

 

If HD1 is larger than the Milky Way and maybe even older, then its reservoir of gas wouldn't be able to sustain the star forming rate they attribute to it.

 

On those grounds your comparison of HD1 and the Milky Way is untenable.

 

I concede that the other explanations may be viable.

 

But now I ask you to concede that your comparison of HD1 and the Milky Way only with regard to their star forming rates was untenable.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Pantheory,

 

I would also remind you of the discussion we had and the resulting agreement, in this thread.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/86217-can-the-universe-create-itself/

 

 

I wrote this.

 

Should there be no evidence of Population III stars, the Cosmic Dark Ages and unevolved protogalaxies then I will accept it.

But should be evidence of these things, then I will accept them as a strong confirmation of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model.

 

 

 

And you wrote this.

 

"Will any amount of data in support of the LCDM model ever be good enough to persuade you to accept it?"

 

Yes, those observations that you and I both explained in support of the LCDM model, would likely persuade me to the model's acceptance, but the other observation possibilities which we both explained and understand, would probably convince both of us, and many others also, that the LCDM model is wrong. 

 

 

 

That was our agreement.

 

So, if HD1 is discovered to be an unevolved protogalaxy then it will be incumbent on your to keep your word and embrace the LCDM model.

 

Or else present a convincing argument as to why you shouldn't.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[pantheory]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Pantheory,

 

If HD1 is larger than the Milky Way and maybe even older, then its reservoir of gas wouldn't be able to sustain the star forming rate they attribute to it.

 

On those grounds your comparison of HD1 and the Milky Way is untenable.

 

I concede that the other explanations may be viable.

 

But now I ask you to concede that your comparison of HD1 and the Milky Way only with regard to their star forming rates was untenable.

 

Thank you.

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

That the galaxy had a high star forming rate was just one of their ideas trying to explain the galaxy's brightness. The star forming rate of this galaxy may actually be lower than the Milky Way. A huge galactic black hole was another of their ideas concerning why the galaxy' appears so bright, as they explained. All calculations of stars, galaxies, etc. in astronomy are based upon certain assumptions and speculations whether the entity is close or the most distant. The majority of their work in analyzing this galaxy is in front of them  I think, regarding James Webb observations which may happen within months concerning this galaxy.

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, pantheory said:

 

That the galaxy had a high star forming rate was just one of their ideas trying to explain the galaxy's brightness. The star forming rate of this galaxy may actually be lower than the Milky Way. A huge galactic black hole was another of their ideas concerning why the galaxy' appears so bright, as they explained. All calculations of stars, galaxies, etc. in astronomy are based upon certain assumptions and speculations whether the entity is close or the most distant. The majority of their work in analyzing this galaxy is in front of them  I think, regarding James Webb observations which may happen within months concerning this galaxy.

 

I know all of this Pantheory.

 

Now please address what I said here.

 

But now I ask you to concede that your comparison of HD1 and the Milky Way only with regard to their star forming rates was untenable.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

26 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Pantheory,

 

I would also remind you of the discussion we had and the resulting agreement, in this thread.

 

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/86217-can-the-universe-create-itself/

 

 

I wrote this.

 

Should there be no evidence of Population III stars, the Cosmic Dark Ages and unevolved protogalaxies then I will accept it.

But should be evidence of these things, then I will accept them as a strong confirmation of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model.

 

 

 

And you wrote this.

 

"Will any amount of data in support of the LCDM model ever be good enough to persuade you to accept it?"

 

Yes, those observations that you and I both explained in support of the LCDM model, would likely persuade me to the model's acceptance, but the other observation possibilities which we both explained and understand, would probably convince both of us, and many others also, that the LCDM model is wrong. 

 

 

 

That was our agreement.

 

So, if HD1 is discovered to be an unevolved protogalaxy then it will be incumbent on your to keep your word and embrace the LCDM model.

 

Or else present a convincing argument as to why you shouldn't.

 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

Nothing like that at all. You do not seem to understand their explanation of the observation.  This is not a young looking small blue galaxy, the only kinds of galaxies that should be found at the beginnings of the universe. Instead this is a total observation anomaly contrary to mainstream cosmology. Granted, even after the James Webb observation of this galaxy observations will always be misinterpreted if they contradict mainstream cosmology. As I said above, my guess is that it will take them no more the 4 years of misunderstandings to figure out that mainstream theory is wrong IMHO.

 

Here is another link explaining it.

21 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I know all of this Pantheory.

 

Now please address what I said here.

 

But now I ask you to concede that your comparison of HD1 and the Milky Way only with regard to their star forming rates was untenable.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

This star forming rate was only their guess, calculated to explain the galaxy's brightness. Their second guess was that the central black hole is creating the galaxy's brightness. If so they calculated the the back hole would have to be 4 times larger than the Milky Way's central back hole. Of course the explanation could be both reasons or neither. And of course there could be a totally different reason for the galaxy's brightness for which they did not further speculate.

 

https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-have-spotted-the-farthest-galaxy-ever-it-may-be-home-to-the-oldest-stars-in-the-universe/

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Nothing like that at all. You do not seem to understand their explanation of the observation.  This is not a young looking small blue galaxy, the only kinds of galaxies that should be found at the beginnings of the universe. Instead this is a total observation anomaly contrary to mainstream cosmology. Granted, even after the James Webb observation of this galaxy observations will always be misinterpreted if they contradict mainstream cosmology. As I said above, my guess is that it will take them no more the 4 years of misunderstandings to figure out that mainstream theory is wrong IMHO.

 

From your cited links.

 

In ultraviolet light, HD1 is exceptionally bright. To explain this, Pacucci claims that “some energetic processes are occurring there or, better yet, did occur some billions of years ago.”

 

In fact, Population III stars are capable of producing more UV light than normal stars, which could clarify the extreme ultraviolet luminosity of HD1.”

 

Blue galaxies emit the bulk of their radiation in the UV.  Therefore, HD1 is not a total anomaly in terms of mainstream cosmology.  That is false.

 

The fact that it is exceptionally bright in the UV is a good indicator that it is very young and not a mature, highly-evolved galaxy.

[pantheory]

26 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Nothing like that at all. You do not seem to understand their explanation of the observation.  This is not a young looking small blue galaxy, the only kinds of galaxies that should be found at the beginnings of the universe. Instead this is a total observation anomaly contrary to mainstream cosmology. Granted, even after the James Webb observation of this galaxy observations will always be misinterpreted if they contradict mainstream cosmology. As I said above, my guess is that it will take them no more the 4 years of misunderstandings to figure out that mainstream theory is wrong IMHO.

 

From your cited links.

 

In ultraviolet light, HD1 is exceptionally bright. To explain this, Pacucci claims that “some energetic processes are occurring there or, better yet, did occur some billions of years ago.”

 

In fact, Population III stars are capable of producing more UV light than normal stars, which could clarify the extreme ultraviolet luminosity of HD1.”

 

Blue galaxies emit the bulk of their radiation in the UV.  Therefore, HD1 is not a total anomaly in terms of mainstream cosmology.  That is false.

 

The fact that it is exceptionally bright in the UV is a good indicator that it is very young and not a mature, highly-evolved galaxy.

 

They didn't say they thought the observation was an anomaly: that was my take oh it.  Astronomers seldom use the word 'anomaly'.  But descriptions of observations by others use the word anomaly since it's more interesting to most readers than technical jargon concerning press releases. But they explain some of its unexpected galaxy characteristics such as being very large and overly red appearing. And of course larger galaxies usually have more energetic central black holes than smaller ones, regarding the production of UV light. Again we will have to wait for JWST observations for them to get a better look with greater clarity. Their next observations could likely be one of the very first concerning the JWST looking out at the furthest distances.