☆ pantheory ☆ Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 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 More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 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 More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 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 More sharing options...
☆ pantheory ☆ Posted June 12, 2023 Author Share Posted June 12, 2023 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 More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted June 12, 2023 Share Posted June 12, 2023 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ pantheory ☆ Posted July 8 Author Share Posted July 8 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 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ pantheory ☆ Posted July 9 Author Share Posted July 9 On 7/9/2024 at 12:48 AM, 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 More sharing options...
walterpthefirst Posted July 9 Share Posted July 9 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 More sharing options...
☆ pantheory ☆ Posted August 7 Author Share Posted August 7 The James Webb continues to observe almost countless contradictions of Lambda Cold Dark Matter Cosmology (LCDM). Now some observers are finally starting to realize, as I long ago predicted, that a change in the cosmological model may be needed to explain James Webb (JWST) observations. This, I believe, is just the beginning of a long process of proposed theoretical changes that will take a number of years longer because the “totally-wrong” LCDM cosmology is so deeply entrenched IMHO. https://astrobites.org/2024/02/17/cosmic-inconsistencies/ The New Roman Space Telescope is another Infrared space telescope by NASA that is presently scheduled to go up in July 2027, also to the Second Lagrange Point like the JWST. If all goes well, It will have a much wider-field vision than the James Webb but will not be able to see greater individual detail than the James Webb. Like all telescopic observations, the Roman will be subject to both correct and incorrect interpretations. But with many more collective observations available maybe cosmologists will eventually start to get it right after years, by the realization of far simpler and more correct theories and discernment of the universe, and of reality itself IMHO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace_Roman_Space_Telescope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ Weezer ◊ Posted August 8 Share Posted August 8 7 hours ago, pantheory said: This, I believe, is just the beginning of a long process of proposed theoretical changes that will take a number of years longer because the “totally-wrong” LCDM cosmology is so deeply entrenched IMHO. Dang. I may not be around long enough to see if your predictions come true. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
☆ pantheory ☆ Posted August 8 Author Share Posted August 8 2 hours ago, Weezer said: Dang. I may not be around long enough to see if your predictions come true. Who knows, maybe they'll figure it out faster than I'm predicting. I hope so cause I ain't gonna live forever either. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now