Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The latest James Webb studies


pantheory

Recommended Posts

Cosmological Model Tests with JWST

[accessed Jun 11 2023]. Cosmological Model Tests with JWST. Available from MDPI

 

It is noticeable that most of these studies of the first JWST data released have something in common,

Namely:

1)There is an excessively large number of galaxies at very high redshifts which was not foreseen by the Standard Cosmological Model.

2) Galaxies at these redshifts have disks and bulges, which indicates that they have passed through a long period of evolution.

3) Spectroscopically, these galaxies resemble their counterparts in the local Universe.

4) Smaller galaxies are more massive than larger ones, which is quite the opposite of the common view.

5) These issues indicate that the galaxies at redshifts z > 15 discovered by JWST did not have enough time within the framework of the standard cosmological model to have evolved into what is being observed.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365957015_Cosmological_Model_Tests_with_JWST

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ResearchGate - Wikipedia

 

Nature also reported that "Some of the apparent profiles on the site are not owned by real people, but are created automatically – and incompletely – by scraping details of people's affiliations, publication records and PDFs, if available, from around the web. That annoys researchers who do not want to be on the site, and who feel that the pages misrepresent them – especially when they discover that ResearchGate will not take down the pages when asked."

 

 

ResearchGate's continuing practice of 'manufacturing' false profiles of people who do not exist is highly unethical.

 

 

Given this, how do we know...

 

 

A )  that the authors of this paper actually exist?

 

and...

 

B )  that ResearchGate has published this paper with their permission?

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit of digging reveals that this paper also appears on Arxiv.

 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.06575.pdf

 

So the doubts over the trust issue re: the paper and its authors have been settled.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

ResearchGate - Wikipedia

 

Nature also reported that "Some of the apparent profiles on the site are not owned by real people, but are created automatically – and incompletely – by scraping details of people's affiliations, publication records and PDFs, if available, from around the web. That annoys researchers who do not want to be on the site, and who feel that the pages misrepresent them – especially when they discover that ResearchGate will not take down the pages when asked."

 

 

ResearchGate's continuing practice of 'manufacturing' false profiles of people who do not exist is highly unethical.

 

 

Given this, how do we know...

 

 

A )  that the authors of this paper actually exist?

 

and...

 

B )  that ResearchGate has published this paper with their permission?

 

 

 

I believe the answer is to simply read the James Webb observations being discussed. A few have been published and many related comments by the authors in quotes, have been made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The conclusions of the paper make for interesting and pertinent reading.

 

5 Conclusions We conclude that the first JWST observations of high-redshift objects cannot be explained by the expanding-Universe model. Everything points to the possibility that the actual age of the objects in the Universe is far larger than predicted by ΛCDM cosmology. Of course, we should be cautious about such a conclusion.

 

Thus, before dismissing the expanding-Universe paradigm, it is important to robustly confirm the new findings.

 

No doubt, much longer exposures and much deeper fields will be acquired in the forthcoming years by the JWST. These longer exposures would likely result in new galaxies discovered at z ≈ 20 or more. Based on our conclusion, we predict that the JWST should discover even smaller galaxies (in terms of their angular-sizes) and that those smaller galaxies would be observed as very luminous, with well-developed morphology. They would be approximately the same (perhaps, slightly less-evolved) as the galaxies of the late Universe. In such a case, the expanding-Universe paradigm would require correction and modification, in line with the discussion presented here.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

NOTEBOOKCHECK,   Astronomy / Space Science                                                                              4/14/24

                                                                             

"The James Webb Space Telescope is re-writing what we thought we knew about the universe"

 

 

Sanjiv Sathiah / NASA GSFC/CIL/Adriana Manrique Gutierrez

 

 

“The James Webb Telescope is the gift that keeps on giving for scientists. Rather than confirming what we already thought we understood about the universe, it is challenging everything at the heart of what is known and accepted as the standard cosmological model.”

 

…..“Following the launch of the JWST, one thing is for certain – the standard cosmological model will need to be revised at the very least. Only time will tell whether it will need to be completely re-written and replaced with an all-new explanation for the origin of the universe and its age.”

 

 

https://www.notebookcheck.net/The-James-Webb-Space-Telescope-is-re-writing-what-we-thought-we-knew-about-the-universe.827251.0.html

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A year ago I wrote this...

 

Thus, before dismissing the expanding-Universe paradigm, it is important to robustly confirm the new findings.

 

...and I still stand by it.

 

 

When the peer-reviewed papers that show the demise of the LCDM model are published and are widely accepted by the scientific community, then I'll consider that model discarded.

 

Until that happens I don't find an article written by a Senior Tech Writer persuasive.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

A year ago I wrote this...

 

Thus, before dismissing the expanding-Universe paradigm, it is important to robustly confirm the new findings.

 

...and I still stand by it.

 

 

When the peer-reviewed papers that show the demise of the LCDM model are published and are widely accepted by the scientific community, then I'll consider that model discarded.

 

Until that happens I don't find an article written by a Senior Tech Writer persuasive.

 

 

 

OK then, but you have to wait another 2-3 more years. In the meantime you will have to endure every kind of possible mainstream misinterpretation that can be imagined, from breadstick galaxies, to tiny galaxies, overly-bright and dense galaxies, galaxies much farther apart than what the distances really were, etc. etc.

 

Remember also that I continue to write such peer-reviewed papers as you mentioned, with many publishers as a Google Scholar. Roughly one published research paper per year. And possibly I could get a paper published declaring the end of the ΛCDM  model anytime I wished. Matter-of-fact I have already written and published such a peer-reviewed paper seen below. But the next one will have a lot more damning evidence in it; that you can bet on.

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a531/bea1fe91b3b03cdde9bd26d9cfee47f1f88d.pdf

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&hl=en

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

OK then, but you have to wait another 2-3 more years. In the meantime you will have to endure every kind of possible mainstream misinterpretation that can be imagined, from breadstick galaxies, to tiny galaxies, overly-bright and dense galaxies, galaxies much farther apart than what the distances really were, etc. etc.

 

Remember also that I continue to write such peer-reviewed papers as you mentioned, with many publishers as a Google Scholar. Roughly one published research paper per year. And possibly I could get a paper published declaring the end of the ΛCDM  model anytime I wished. Matter-of-fact I have already written and published such a peer-reviewed paper seen below. But the next one will have a lot more damning evidence in it; that you can bet on.

 

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a531/bea1fe91b3b03cdde9bd26d9cfee47f1f88d.pdf

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&hl=en

 

 

 

 

 

I do not bet like this.

 

Also, your personal bias against mainstream is noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.