Contradicting Mainstream Cosmology

[pantheory]

"James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how the universe evolved"

Date:

April 13, 2023

"Summary:

Astronomers find that six of the earliest and most massive galaxy candidates observed by the James Webb Space Telescope so far appear to have converted nearly 100% of their available gas into stars, a finding at odds with the reigning model of cosmology.

Share::

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) appears to be finding multiple galaxies that grew too massive too soon after the Big Bang, if the standard model of cosmology is to be believed.

In a study published in Nature Astronomy, Mike Boylan-Kolchin, an associate professor of astronomy at The University of Texas at Austin, finds that six of the earliest and most massive galaxy candidates observed by JWST so far stand to contradict the prevailing thinking in cosmology." 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

[walterpthefirst]

Pantheory,

 

Shouldn't the title of this thread be changed to 'Potentially Contradicting Mainstream Cosmology' ?

 

You seem to have left out the all important point about these observations.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

 

The six galaxies' times and masses are initial estimates and will need follow-up confirmation with spectroscopy -- a method that splits the light into a spectrum and analyzes the brightness of different colors. Such analysis might suggest that central supermassive black holes, which could heat up the surrounding gas, may be making the galaxies brighter so that they look more massive than they really are. Or perhaps the galaxies are actually seen at a time much later than originally estimated due to dust that causes the colour of the light from the galaxy to shift redder, giving the illusion of being more lightyears away and, thus, further back in time.

 

For these six galaxies to actually contradict mainstream cosmology their times (distances) and masses would have to be confirmed by spectroscopic analysis.

 

Isn't that correct?  

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Pantheory,

 

Shouldn't the title of this thread be changed to 'Potentially Contradicting Mainstream Cosmology' ?

 

You seem to have left out the all important point about these observations.

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/04/230413154323.htm

 

The six galaxies' times and masses are initial estimates and will need follow-up confirmation with spectroscopy -- a method that splits the light into a spectrum and analyzes the brightness of different colors. Such analysis might suggest that central supermassive black holes, which could heat up the surrounding gas, may be making the galaxies brighter so that they look more massive than they really are. Or perhaps the galaxies are actually seen at a time much later than originally estimated due to dust that causes the colour of the light from the galaxy to shift redder, giving the illusion of being more lightyears away and, thus, further back in time.

 

For these six galaxies to actually contradict mainstream cosmology their times (distances) and masses would have to be confirmed by spectroscopic analysis.

 

Isn't that correct?  

 

 

 

Walter.

 

 

Yes, that might have been better. Also, "Challenging Mainstream Cosmology" might have been better.

 

No, just the appearances alone of such galaxies at such a supposed early age of the universe challenges theory. Yes, their comments suggest the possibility that their initial measurements and interpretations could be wrong, but wrong for all six of these galaxies? Possibilities are not probabilities.  But as you said, further analyses needs to be done to have a higher confidence in their conclusions, with the possibility of them changing their conclusions.

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, that might have been better. Also, "Challenging Mainstream Cosmology" might have been better.

 

Agreed.

 

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

No, just the appearances alone of such galaxies at such a supposed early age of the universe challenges theory.

 

 

A challenge represents a potential outcome, not the actual outcome itself.  Once the outcome is decided the challenge is over.  It was either successful or it failed.  And since the spectroscopic analysis of these candidate galaxies has not yet happened, the outcome - success or failure - is still unknown.

 

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

 

Yes, their comments suggest the possibility that their initial measurements and interpretations could be wrong, but wrong for all six of these galaxies?

 

Why not?  You opine that all of the many mainstream measurements of the age of the universe are wrong.  So the sword cuts both ways.  

 

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, their comments suggest the possibility that their initial measurements and interpretations could be wrong, but wrong for all six of these galaxies?

Possibilities are not probabilities. 

 

 

This is a red herring.  The word 'possibilities' is only used once by Boylan-Kolchin.  Here...

 

 "If the masses are right, then we are in uncharted territory," Boylan-Kolchin said. "We'll require something very new about galaxy formation or a modification to cosmology. One of the most extreme possibilities is that the universe was expanding faster shortly after the Big Bang than we predict, which might require new forces and particles."

 

Boylan-Kolchin never uses the word 'probabilities' in his comments and makes no effort to compare possibilities with probabilities or to define them in relation to the subject at hand, which are the six candidate galaxies.  Instead, he only uses the word in the context of the value of the universe's rate of expansion.  He never uses that word in relation to the spectroscopic analysis of the six candidate galaxies masses and times (distances).

 

This is just another example of you putting your spin on someone else's words, Pantheory.

 

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

 

But as you said, further analyses needs to be done to have a higher confidence in their conclusions, with the possibility of them changing their conclusions.

 

Indeed!

[pantheory]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Agreed.

 

 

A challenge represents a potential outcome, not the actual outcome itself.  Once the outcome is decided the challenge is over.  It was either successful or it failed.  And since the spectroscopic analysis of these candidate galaxies has not yet happened, the outcome - success or failure - is still unknown.

 

 

Why not?  You opine that all of the many mainstream measurements of the age of the universe are wrong.  So the sword cuts both ways.  

 

 

This is a red herring.  The word 'possibilities' is only used once by Boylan-Kolchin.  Here...

 

 "If the masses are right, then we are in uncharted territory," Boylan-Kolchin said. "We'll require something very new about galaxy formation or a modification to cosmology. One of the most extreme possibilities is that the universe was expanding faster shortly after the Big Bang than we predict, which might require new forces and particles."

 

Boylan-Kolchin never uses the word 'probabilities' in his comments and makes no effort to compare possibilities with probabilities or to define them in relation to the subject at hand, which are the six candidate galaxies.  Instead, he only uses the word in the context of the value of the universe's rate of expansion.  He never uses that word in relation to the spectroscopic analysis of the six candidate galaxies masses and times (distances).

 

This is just another example of you putting your spin on someone else's words, Pantheory.

 

 

Indeed!

 

If you say so.