"Impossible" massive galaxies

[pantheory]

The James Webb is observing many galaxies that should not exist according to Big Bang theory.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/02/230222115828.htm

[walterpthefirst]

Correction:

 

The JWST has observed galaxies that should not exist according to the Lambda Cold Dark Matter (LCDM) model of the universe's evolution.

 

The LCDM is not, I repeat NOT, the same thing at all as the Big Bang Theory of cosmic origins.

 

I've been waiting for Pantheory to post something like this and so I've done some research of my own.  My first step was to ask the resident scientists at Physicsforum.com to comment on this news.  Here is what one of them, going by the handle ohwilleke, had to say.

 

The New Paper In Nature

 

The paper in question (and its abstract) which were linked to in the news report referenced above, is as follows (footnotes in the abstract omitted):

 

Galaxies with stellar masses as high as ~ 1011 solar masses have been identified out to redshifts z ~ 6, approximately one billion years after the Big Bang. It has been difficult to find massive galaxies at even earlier times, as the Balmer break region, which is needed for accurate mass estimates, is redshifted to wavelengths beyond 2.5 μm. Here we make use of the 1-5 μm coverage of the JWST early release observations to search for intrinsically red galaxies in the first ≈ 750 million years of cosmic history. In the survey area, we find six candidate massive galaxies (stellar mass > 1010solar masses) at 7.4 ≤ z ≤ 9.1, 500–700 Myr after the Big Bang, including one galaxy with a possible stellar mass of ~1011 solar masses. If verified with spectroscopy, the stellar mass density in massive galaxies would be much higher than anticipated from previous studies based on rest-frame ultraviolet-selected samples.

 

Labbé, I., van Dokkum, P., Nelson, E. et al. "A population of red candidate massive galaxies ~600 Myr after the Big Bang." Nature (February 22, 2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05786-2

 

Why Is This Paper Important?

 

The Bottom Line

 

The paper is notable because it is the most extreme and definitive example of astronomy observations that give rise to the "impossible early galaxy problem" of the LamdaCDM model which is often described as the "Standard Model of Cosmology."

 

Simply put, the LambdaCDM model predicts that the formation of galaxies of this size should take place far later after the Big Bang than the time frames in which they have been observed by astronomers to exist.

 

Previous LambdaCDM Galaxy Formation Predictions Compared

 

One widely accepted prediction was made by astrophysicist Carlos Frenk at a scientific conference in October of 1998 based upon LambdaCDM simulations had been that there would be no galaxies before redshift z=7. This corresponds to a look back time of 13.01 billion years, which is about 770 million years after the Big Bang, which implies that galaxies start forming about 55% to 10% more slowly in the LambdaCDM model than the earliest galaxies must start to form given what has been observed to form so far by the JWST. And, new observations of earlier galaxies over the lifetime of the JWST's mission can only make that gap worse, not weaker, if even earlier galaxies are located.

 

Like most things in astronomy and cosmology, this LambdaCDM prediction for the time period in which galaxies start to form had a margin of error, but it wasn't a big one and had largely been confirmed by later calculations and simulations made in using the bare LambdaCDM model over the next quarter of a century. And, the LambdaCDM model was so admirable, in part, because it had so few complications and parameters to leave wiggle room in its predictions, and yet was still a good fit to the data for decades.

 

But now, the new paper in Nature is reporting six reasonably large galaxies at redshifts of z=7.4 ≤ z ≤ 9.1, which at the high end, is much earlier in time than Frenk's LambdaCDM model prediction of z=7. Frenck's 1998 prediction has been only slightly tweaked over the next quarter century and is a precise enough prediction to be significantly different, statistically, from the results announce in the new paper in Nature.

 

The Impossible Early Galaxies Problem

 

A published paper from 2016 articulated the "impossible early galaxies" problem as follows:

 

The current hierarchical merging paradigm and ΛCDM predict that the z∼ 4-8 universe should be a time in which the most massive galaxies are transitioning from their initial halo assembly to the later baryonic evolution seen in star-forming galaxies and quasars. However, no evidence of this transition has been found in many high-redshift galaxy surveys including CFHTLS, Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Survey (CANDELS), and Spitzer Large Area Survey with Hyper-Suprime-Cam (SPLASH), which were the first studies to probe the high-mass end at these redshifts. Indeed, if halo mass to stellar mass ratios estimated at lower-redshift continue to z∼ 6-8, CANDELS and SPLASH report several orders of magnitude more M∼ 1012-13M⊙ halos than is possible to have been formed by those redshifts, implying that these massive galaxies formed impossibly early.

 

We consider various systematics in the stellar synthesis models used to estimate physical parameters and possible galaxy formation scenarios in an effort to reconcile observation with theory. Although known uncertainties can greatly reduce the disparity between recent observations and cold dark matter merger simulations, there remains considerable tension with current theory even if taking the most conservative view of the observations.

 

Steinhardt, Charles. L. ; Capak, Peter; Masters, Dan; Speagle, Josh S., "The Impossible Early Galaxies Problem" 824(1) The Astrophysical Journal, article id. 21, 9 pp. (June 2016). DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/21 (open access copy available at arXiv:1506.01377)

 

Thus, there were strong observational hints that there might be an "impossible early galaxy problem", for example, from the Hubble space telescope's observations and other "telescopes" (using the term loosely to describe a variety of astronomy instruments) that can probe highly redshifted objects long before the paper above published yesterday in Nature based upon JWST observations was released.

 

But, since the James Webb Space Telescope is so much more powerful than any earlier telescope when it comes to probing high redshift objects, what were previously strong hints that there might be big galaxies very soon after the Big Bang turned almost immediately after the JWST came online into multiple clear and unequivocal examples of galaxies of given sizes long before LambdaCDM said that they should exist. The JWST has also seen more galaxies at higher redshifts (i.e. more recently after the Big Bang) than any other "telescopes" before it has (even though it has been on line only briefly). This paper discusses the oldest galaxies seen to date, just 500-700 million years after the Big Bang, that look far more like modern galaxies than the LambdaCDM model should have made possible at this early time period in the universe.

 

To oversimplify the narrative somewhat, LambdaCDM assumes that in the early universe clumps of dark matter start to accumulate from random differences in matter density, which make it possible for ordinary matter to become concentrated enough to form stars, which in turn end up in clumps of proto-galaxies. These clumps undergoing a "hierarchal" process of repeated mergers and the collide into each other, until they eventually form modern sized galaxies.

 

The LambdaCDM model, once its six parameters are fitted to astronomy observations, provides data that makes it possible to make reasonable estimates of the rate at which dark matter becomes clumpy, the rate at which stars form, and the rate at which mergers occur, from which it is possible to make reasonable estimates of when galaxies of a certain size ought to appear.

 

But evidence provided by the JWST, exemplified by this paper with the earliest examples of early galaxies, makes clear that either something about the calculations used to make those predictions, or the LambdaCDM model itself, are wrong in this respect.

 

The jury is out regarding why galaxies formed much earlier than expected in the LambdaCDM model, even though something is clearly amiss.

 

What About The LambdaCDM Model Does This Paper Show Is Broken?

 

One of the main pieces of experimental evidence that previously inspired confidence in the accuracy of the LambdaCDM model was its ability to describe essentially all cosmological scale observations at a large scale structure level with just six astronomy observation fixed parameters, each of which has been measured with some precision.

 

The LambdaCDM model, once its six parameters are fitted, is, for example, an extraordinarily good match to the observed pattern of the cosmic background radiation (CMB) which came into being during the "recombination era" about 0.38 million years after the Big Bang. (See generally here for the conventional chronology of the universe after the Big Bang in cosmology.) Star and galaxy formation can't happen in any appreciable amount until after the recombination era when ordinary matter and photons (i.e. "radiation") decouple from each other because protons and electrons have been bound together into neutral atoms and the temperature of the universe has cooled sufficiently to allow for greater clumping of matter. So, we think that LambdaCDM gets the "starting line" of the star and galaxy formation process right even after this new paper.

 

But, the new paper's observations imply that the universe went from giving birth to its first stars after recombination ended, to producing galaxies similar in scale to many galaxies we see today at very low redshifts (about 13,780 million years after recombination), in just 500 to 700 million years. This strongly suggests that some other part of the LambdaCDM model, that crops up later in the history of galaxy formation in the universe and the larger span of the chronology of cosmology, is broken.

 

Are The Observations In This Paper Credible And Likely To Hold Up?

 

This result is highly credible because it confirms pre-JWST strong hints that these early galaxies existed. As noted above "high-redshift galaxy surveys including CFHTLS, Cosmic Assembly Near-infrared Deep Extragalactic Survey (CANDELS), and Spitzer Large Area Survey with Hyper-Suprime-Cam (SPLASH)" were already pointing to this result seven years ago, although much more equivocally than the new data from the JWST does.

 

The new paper's results are also credible observations because many other JWST observations also identify early galaxies, even though they have not yet been published, have been released to the public, and in some cases have been disclosed in preprints of articles that have been accepted for publication in leading astronomy journals (e.g. here and here and here). So, independent confirmations of the existence of early galaxies established in the Nature article using JWST observation of other candidate galaxies at very high redshifts over the course of the next year or so, are a near certainty.

 

Another reason that this result is credible is that the impossible early galaxy problem with the LambdaCDM model isn't the only recent crack in that model's predictions.

 

A full review of discrepancies between astronomy observations and the LambdaCDM model is beyond the scope of this thread. But it suffices to say that there are half a dozen or a dozen or so distinct and independent discrepancies between LambdaCDM model predictions and astronomy observations that are currently being actively investigated in areas that range from galaxy and galaxy cluster observations to different kinds of cosmology scale observations.

 

Some of those discrepancies may turn out to be experimental methodology issues or require slight tweaks to how the LambdaCDM predictions are calculated that are no big deal in the greater scheme of things. Others discrepancies, however, may turn out to be as serious a challenge to the LambdaCDM model as the impossible early galaxy problem that the new paper in Nature has highlighted.

 

This is a very different situation than the one that exists for the Standard Model of Particle Physics, where every time a discrepancy or tension between the Standard Model's predictions and experiment has cropped up over the last half century (except with respect to neutrino mass), it has subsequently promptly been ruled out with more experiments and better analysis, and there are only a few weak discrepancies between the Standard Model and experiment currently in play.

 

So, the scientific community is already primed right now to be more receptive to challenges to the "Standard Model of Cosmology" than it is to tensions between experimental results and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

 

Alternatives To The LambdaCDM Model

 

If the LambdaCDM model is "broken" what alternatives exist to it?

 

There are multiple possible ways that the LambdaCDM model could be tweaked. One of those many possible alternatives is to look at a gravity based explanation of dark matter phenomena.

 

Models that attempt to explain dark matter phenomena with a modification to the laws of gravity or how they operate, rather than with dark matter particles, generically predict earlier galaxy formation than the LambdaCDM model does, consistent with the new JWST observations.

 

For example, galaxies were predicted to form in the time frame now observed by Bob Sanders in October of 1997 in the MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics) paradigm which is the most widely discussed gravitation based approach to explaining dark matter phenomena, even though it is itself a mere phenomenological toy model theory. Sanders predicted that: “Objects of galaxy mass are the first virialized objects to form (by z=10) and larger structure develops rapidly.” This is a little less than 500 million years after the Big Bang.

 

A JWST observation of a galaxy that may be as earlier as z=9.1 after only an initial quick search shortly after it has become operational, is consistent with that prediction and is at odds with the LambdaCDM prediction.

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/universe-breaking-results-from-jwst-what-does-this-mean.1050268/

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

The takeaway points about the above comments are these.

 

1. 

If the Big Bang theory were exactly the same as the LCDM model (as Pantheory would have us believe) then ohwilleke would have said so.  But he doesn't.  Because they aren't the same.  They are two different things.

 

2.

If the Big Bang theory were exactly the same as the LCDM model then ohwilleke would not have included heading titles like 'What About The LambdaCDM Does This Paper Show Is Broken?'  or 'Alternatives To The LambdaCDM Model'.  He would have said Big Bang theory in both cases.  But he didn't.  Because the they are two different things.

 

3.

Ohwilleke correctly uses the words predict, predicts and predictions ONLY in the context of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model and nowhere does he say that these new results are a prediction of the Big Bang theory.

4.

Ohwilleke specifically and unequivocally calls these new results for what they are.  Not a problem for the Big Bang theory, but...

Another reason that this result is credible is that the impossible early galaxy problem with the LambdaCDM model isn't the only recent crack in that model's predictions. 

So, this is a problem for the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model and NOT the Big Bang theory.  That's because these are two different things and not the same thing.

 

Pantheory has correctly labelled this thread as the Impossible Massive Galaxy Problem, but then falsely claims that such galaxies should not exist according to the Big Bang theory.

 

I therefore need to ask him one simple, Yes or No question.

 

Are the Big Bang theory and the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Model exactly the same thing, as you claim Pantheory?

 

Yes or No?

[pantheory]

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

The takeaway points about the above comments are these.

 

1. 

If the Big Bang theory were exactly the same as the LCDM model (as Pantheory would have us believe) then ohwilleke would have said so.  But he doesn't.  Because they aren't the same.  They are two different things.

 

2.

If the Big Bang theory were exactly the same as the LCDM model then ohwilleke would not have included heading titles like 'What About The LambdaCDM Does This Paper Show Is Broken?'  or 'Alternatives To The LambdaCDM Model'.  He would have said Big Bang theory in both cases.  But he didn't.  Because the they are two different things.

 

3.

Ohwilleke correctly uses the words predict, predicts and predictions ONLY in the context of the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model and nowhere does he say that these new results are a prediction of the Big Bang theory.

4.

Ohwilleke specifically and unequivocally calls these new results for what they are.  Not a problem for the Big Bang theory, but...

Another reason that this result is credible is that the impossible early galaxy problem with the LambdaCDM model isn't the only recent crack in that model's predictions. 

So, this is a problem for the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model and NOT the Big Bang theory.  That's because these are two different things and not the same thing.

 

Pantheory has correctly labelled this thread as the Impossible Massive Galaxy Problem, but then falsely claims that such galaxies should not exist according to the Big Bang theory.

 

I therefore need to ask him one simple, Yes or No question.

 

Are the Big Bang theory and the Lambda Cold Dark Matter Model exactly the same thing, as you claim Pantheory?

 

Yes or No?

 

No, they are not exactly the same. The LCDM model is considered the most modern version of the Big Bang model, referred to as today's "Standard Model" of both the Big Bang and of cosmology.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

 

The LCDM model is also called the present concordance model.

 

https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/concordance+model

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, pantheory said:

 

No, they are not exactly the same. The LCDM model is considered the most modern version of the Big Bang model, referred to as today's "Standard Model" of both the Big Bang model and of cosmology.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

 

 

 

 

Then your one liner is incorrect.

 

The James Webb is observing many galaxies that should not exist according to Big Bang theory.

 

It should read that the JWST is observing many galaxies that should not exist according to...  the LCDM model.

 

If the two things are not exactly the same then its misleading of you to treat the two terms as interchangeable.

 

So, would you like to correct or clarify your misleading statement?

 

Unless it was your intent to mislead the members of this forum that the JWST has observed galaxies that 'break' the Big Bang theory? 

 

?

 

 

[pantheory]

20 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Then your one liner is incorrect.

 

The James Webb is observing many galaxies that should not exist according to Big Bang theory.

 

It should read that the JWST is observing many galaxies that should not exist according to...  the LCDM model.

 

If the two things are not exactly the same then its misleading of you to treat the two terms as interchangeable.

 

So, would you like to correct or clarify your misleading statement?

 

Unless it was your intent to mislead the members of this forum that the JWST has observed galaxies that 'break' the Big Bang theory? 

 

?

 

 

 

Usually when one is referring to the Big Bang model, one is referring to the most modern, recent version of it.  But since all versions of the Big Bang model that I have ever heard of accept the Hubble age and distance formula, these galaxies could not be consistent with any of them unless you know a BB model that uses a different distance and age formula that could allow for a much older universe.

 

But you are correct in believing that someone might be able to propose, right or wrong, a BB model that might seem to be consistent with these observations. like I have said before, i believe it will take them roughly 3-4 years to generally figure it out.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

 

Usually when one is referring to the Big Bang model, one is referring to the most modern, recent version of it.  But since all versions of the Big Bang model that I have ever heard of accept the Hubble age and distance formula, these galaxies could not be consistent with any of them unless you know a BB model that uses a different distance and age formula that could allow for a much older universe.

 

But you are correct in believing that someone might be able to propose, right or wrong, a BB model that might seem to be consistent with these observations. like I have said before, i believe it will take them roughly 3-4 years to generally figure it out.

 

It's not a question of what I believe about these competing theories Pantheory because as you already know, I don't hold to any particular theory or model.  That's why I asked the question 'What does this mean?' at Physicsforums.  That's also why my follow up questions there concerned the masses of said galaxies, the reason for their apparent redness and how they would be classified. 

 

You see?  There's nothing that I've written here or over at Physicforums to even hint that I'm defending the Big Bang model.  All of the 'defending', if you care to call it that, came from ohwilleke.  So, if you were attempting to paint me as a defender of Big bang cosmology by implying that I believe it, you've failed.  All I want is to gain a better understanding of the facts and to see that the members of this forum understand the facts too.

 

What I am defending here is proper scientific rigor and due process.

 

That was why I corrected your one-liner.  So that the members here would not conclude that ALL of Big Bang cosmology was broken by these six galaxies.  It is the evolution of galaxies from collapsing dark matter haloes, as described by the LCDM model, that appears to be broken if further observations and spectroscopic redshifts confirm the distances and masses of these candidate galaxies.  Nothing more can be said with any degree of certainty.  That is ohwilleke's line and I agree with it.  Not because I am defending Big Bang cosmology in any way but because that is a properly rigorous and accurate description of what is happening that does not jump the gun. 

 

 

When theists and Christian apologists shows signs of Confirmation Bias in their arguments we rightly call them on it.  

 

https://www.simplypsychology.org/confirmation-bias.html

 

But this bias is not confined to the arena of religion.  Pure atheists are just as liable to suffer from this bias too.  All that is required is a deeply entrenched, strongly-held belief.  Like a decades-long belief in the failure of Big Bang cosmology to accurately describe the universe.  Confirmation bias can cause the holder of this belief to give more weight to evidence that appears to confirm their belief and less weight to evidence that doesn't.  This could result in their making statements that do not accurately reflect the facts in question.  Possibly 'spinning' news articles and science information as to appear to confirm their longed for and long-awaited vindication.

 

Confirmation bias is the deadly enemy of rational and reasoned thinking Pantheory.  In this forum we atheists, sceptics and Ex-Christians strive to keep our thinking as rational and reasonable as possible, in the face of religious irrationality and unreason.  It would be a sad day for this forum if a pure atheist were to allow this bias to influence what they post here.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.  

[pantheory]

20 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

It's not a question of what I believe about these competing theories Pantheory because as you already know, I don't hold to any particular theory or model.  That's why I asked the question 'What does this mean?' at Physicsforums.  That's also why my follow up questions there concerned the masses of said galaxies, the reason for their apparent redness and how they would be classified. 

 

You see?  There's nothing that I've written here or over at Physicforums to even hint that I'm defending the Big Bang model.  All of the 'defending', if you care to call it that, came from ohwilleke.  So, if you were attempting to paint me as a defender of Big bang cosmology by implying that I believe it, you've failed.  All I want is to gain a better understanding of the facts and to see that the members of this forum understand the facts too.

 

What I am defending here is proper scientific rigor and due process.

 

That was why I corrected your one-liner.  So that the members here would not conclude that ALL of Big Bang cosmology was broken by these six galaxies.  It is the evolution of galaxies from collapsing dark matter haloes, as described by the LCDM model, that appears to be broken if further observations and spectroscopic redshifts confirm the distances and masses of these candidate galaxies.  Nothing more can be said with any degree of certainty.  That is ohwilleke's line and I agree with it.  Not because I am defending Big Bang cosmology in any way but because that is a properly rigorous and accurate description of what is happening that does not jump the gun. 

 

 

When theists and Christian apologists shows signs of Confirmation Bias in their arguments we rightly call them on it.  

 

https://www.simplypsychology.org/confirmation-bias.html

 

But this bias is not confined to the arena of religion.  Pure atheists are just as liable to suffer from this bias too.  All that is required is a deeply entrenched, strongly-held belief.  Like a decades-long belief in the failure of Big Bang cosmology to accurately describe the universe.  Confirmation bias can cause the holder of this belief to give more weight to evidence that appears to confirm their belief and less weight to evidence that doesn't.  This could result in their making statements that do not accurately reflect the facts in question.  Possibly 'spinning' news articles and science information as to appear to confirm their longed for and long-awaited vindication.

 

Confirmation bias is the deadly enemy of rational and reasoned thinking Pantheory.  In this forum we atheists, sceptics and Ex-Christians strive to keep our thinking as rational and reasonable as possible, in the face of religious irrationality and unreason.  It would be a sad day for this forum if a pure atheist were to allow this bias to influence what they post here.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.  

 

True concerning confirmation bias. But my beliefs concerning atheism can be confirmed by many science fields of study and evidence involving biology, genetics, geology, historical geology, archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, etc.

 

My unique beliefs or disbeliefs concerning cosmology relate to more than a decade of continuous study and journal peer-reviewed writings and publishings.

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, pantheory said:

 

True concerning confirmation bias. But my beliefs concerning atheism can be confirmed by many science fields of study including biology, genetics, geology, historical geology, archaeology, paleontology, anthropology, etc.

 

My unique beliefs or disbeliefs concerning cosmology relate to more than a decade of continuous study and journal peer-reviewed writings and publishings.

 

Your beliefs concerning atheism are not the issue here Pantheory.  Your unique beliefs concerning cosmology are.  That was my point.

 

If your beliefs are held too strongly and are too emotionally important for you to see them contradicted, then you run the risk of yielding to confirmation bias.

If you are prepared to rush the issue and not let science proceed with due rigor, then you run the risk of yielding to confirmation bias.

If you are prepared to interpret data in your own personal way, then again, you run the risk of yielding to confirmation bias.

 

However, one argument that I have sometimes used when debating Christian apologists is this. 

 

If what you believe is true then the evidence doesn't need you to tell other people how to interpret it.

Unless they are stupid or lying or suffering from confirmation bias themselves, then they will see the evidence for what it really is.

And I submit that the same principle applies here, even though we are talking science and not religion.

 

Therefore, you don't need to force the issue Pantheory, by posting articles that you interpret as vindicating your beliefs.

You've said yourself that the evidence and the facts will be accepted in several years time.

So why not wait for science to proceed with proper rigor and arrive at the right conclusions?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Your beliefs concerning atheism are not the issue here Pantheory.  Your unique beliefs concerning cosmology are.  That was my point.

 

If your beliefs are held too strongly and are too emotionally important for you to see them contradicted, then you run the risk of yielding to confirmation bias.

If you are prepared to rush the issue and not let science proceed with due rigor, then you run the risk of yielding to confirmation bias.

If you are prepared to interpret data in your own personal way, then again, you run the risk of yielding to confirmation bias.

 

However, one argument that I have sometimes used when debating Christian apologists is this. 

 

If what you believe is true then the evidence doesn't need you to tell other people how to interpret it.

Unless they are stupid or lying or suffering from confirmation bias themselves, then they will see the evidence for what it really is.

And I submit that the same principle applies here, even though we are talking science and not religion.

 

Therefore, you don't need to force the issue Pantheory, by posting articles that you interpret as vindicating your beliefs.

You've said yourself that the evidence and the facts will be accepted in several years time.

So why not wait for science to proceed with proper rigor and arrive at the right conclusions?

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

OK, wait I must -- but like you, I would like to know the "correct" answers now   -- and not see years of misinterpretations which Is a stage of analyses I believe they must first go through  , but on this I hope I am wrong.  And I expect we will both post related "cosmology news" here as it progresses.

[walterpthefirst]

21 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

OK, wait I must -- but like you, I would like to know the "correct" answers now   -- and not see years of misinterpretations which Is a stage of analyses I believe they must first go through  , but on this I hope I am wrong.  And I expect we will both post related "cosmology news" here as it progresses.

 

I can quite sympathize with your impatience Pantheory.

 

But our field of mutual interest, cosmology and space science in general, is one that is massively prone to delays, more delays and further delays.  For example... How long was the JWST itself delayed?  So, any data it has given us has been correspondingly delayed too.  Another very important project that I really want to see up and running is being delayed by religious opposition.  The Thirty Metre Telescope that should be well on its way to completion on the summit of Mauna Kea.  But it isn't.

 

https://spaceq.ca/thirty-meter-telescope-construction-could-be-delayed-until-2023/#:~:text=This past weekend the Canadian Astronomical Society (CASCA),until 2023. This page is for subscribers only.

 

And then there's the probe to the asteroid 16 Psyche.  Problems with the software pushed the launch date back from August last year to October this year, meaning that we won't get any decent data until mid 2029.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-continues-psyche-asteroid-mission

 

And let's not forget the deadening impact Covid had on observation, experimentation and research across every field of science.  More delays everywhere!

 

 

So, perhaps I can offer you a crumb of comfort here?  At least you and I are here to see the JWST launched and to see the results trickle in.  Spare a thought for the guy I never got to meet in this forum - BAA, the Born Again Atheist.  He had his life snuffed out before seeing any of what we're seeing now.  You know how passionate he was about space and the cosmos.  How sad is that?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I can quite sympathize with your impatience Pantheory.

 

But our field of mutual interest, cosmology and space science in general, is one that is massively prone to delays, more delays and further delays.  For example... How long was the JWST itself delayed?  So, any data it has given us has been correspondingly delayed too.  Another very important project that I really want to see up and running is being delayed by religious opposition.  The Thirty Metre Telescope that should be well on its way to completion on the summit of Mauna Kea.  But it isn't.

 

https://spaceq.ca/thirty-meter-telescope-construction-could-be-delayed-until-2023/#:~:text=This past weekend the Canadian Astronomical Society (CASCA),until 2023. This page is for subscribers only.

 

And then there's the probe to the asteroid 16 Psyche.  Problems with the software pushed the launch date back from August last year to October this year, meaning that we won't get any decent data until mid 2029.

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-continues-psyche-asteroid-mission

 

And let's not forget the deadening impact Covid had on observation, experimentation and research across every field of science.  More delays everywhere!

 

 

So, perhaps I can offer you a crumb of comfort here?  At least you and I are here to see the JWST launched and to see the results trickle in.  Spare a thought for the guy I never got to meet in this forum - BAA, the Born Again Atheist.  He had his life snuffed out before seeing any of what we're seeing now.  You know how passionate he was about space and the cosmos.  How sad is that?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

I remember when our moon landing happened in 69, I told my uncle that I thought we'd be on Mars by the year 2000. But he said we would not even go back to the moon after our current space race program was over (ending in the early 70's), before the year 2000, unless there is another space race, or we can find a commercial way to pay for it. He said people in general (the voting public) are not interested in that kind of futuristic bullshit like your are. They are just interested in social welfare programs that can benefit them. I thought he was totally wrong, but unfortunately he turned out to be right

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 3/1/2023 at 7:02 PM, pantheory said:

 

They are just interested in social welfare programs that can benefit them. I thought he was totally wrong, but unfortunately he turned out to be right

 

It does seem their highest priority is winning the next election.  Do you think they are smart enough to realize that who controls space is in a position to control the world?  

[pantheory]

19 hours ago, Weezer said:

It does seem their highest priority is winning the next election.  Do you think they are smart enough to realize that who controls space is in a position to control the world?  

 

I thought I answered this one but I guess not.

 

No, I'm not too fond of mixing politics with space. IMHO private industry can often do twice as much good in science as the government, with the same amount of money. Space certainly will have an important seat at the table concerning control of the future world. Both Republicans and Democrats have an understanding of that fact IMO.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

 

Saw this on FB and instantly thought of this thread lmao thought yall might like it. 

 

DB