Assertedly, first galaxies of universe

[pantheory]

Years ago I would not have posted this study and research 1st. because the interpretations of it are contrary to my own cosmological beliefs. But based upon an agreement I made with BAA years ago, when he was with us, I'm posting it now, as maybe the 1st finder of it. Here is the link. It is based upon the most recent observations, studies, and mainstream interpretations "furthest observations made" to date by the James Webb :

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240523153708.htm

 

Instead of being the youngest galaxies ever observed by the James Webb, as they believe and assert in their research, I believe instead they are probably a few of the farthest galaxies or a galaxy cluster ever observed by the James Webb space telescope or any other scope, which is great IMO.. Only your comments favoring mainstream theory, or directed toward me, will bring me to explain the details of why my opinion, interpretations, and theory are different from theirs, also by agreement with BAA.

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

9 hours ago, pantheory said:

Instead of being the youngest galaxies ever observed by the James Webb, as they believe and assert in their research, I believe instead they are probably a few of the farthest galaxies or a galaxy cluster ever observed by the James Webb space telescope or any other scope,

It makes sense to me that because of the speed of light, 'farthest' and 'youngest' is compatible. And that if further galaxies are observed, they are younger still in the context of the Big Bang. But I remember you didn't think the Big Bang was the correct theory, or am I wrong? Please explain. 

[pantheory]

On 5/29/2024 at 8:04 PM, moxieflux66 said:

It makes sense to me that because of the speed of light, 'farthest' and 'youngest' is compatible. And that if further galaxies are observed, they are younger still in the context of the Big Bang. But I remember you didn't think the Big Bang was the correct theory, or am I wrong? Please explain. 

 

Yes, I believe the BB model is wrong. I believe at the farthest distances observable to us I believe there are an equal number of both young and old, large and small galaxies, the same as the Milky Way and galaxies in our local group, and provide the observations by others to support this belief. Accordingly I wrote two published scientific research papers about it. Below you will see the latest paper

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363649063_The_Surprising_and_unexpected_discoveries_the_James_Webb_Space_Telescope_will_likely_make_based_upon_our_research

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, I believe the BB model is wrong. I believe at the farthest distances observable to us I believe there are an equal number of both young and old, large ans small galaxies, the same as the Milky Way and galaxies in our local group, and provide the observations by others to support this belief. Accordingly I wrote two published scientific research papers about it. Below you will see the latest paper

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363649063_The_Surprising_and_unexpected_discoveries_the_James_Webb_Space_Telescope_will_likely_make_based_upon_our_research

 

This might be of interest to you, Pantheory.

 

New Research Shows That Most Early Galaxies Looked Like Breadsticks Rather Than Pizza Pies or Dough Balls | Columbia News

 

[pantheory]

22 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

This might be of interest to you, Pantheory.

 

New Research Shows That Most Early Galaxies Looked Like Breadsticks Rather Than Pizza Pies or Dough Balls | Columbia News

 

 

 

From the pictures in your link, those breadsticks look like Spirals to me that are not exactly edge on. I saw only one that looked like an Elliptical face on. As to size, if the galaxies are only the largest galaxies at those great distances and twice as far away as one can calculate using the wrong distance formula, the Hubble, they will appear to be roughly 1/4th their proper size and appear to be denser than they really were.

 

thanks for the good link, cheers

[walterpthefirst]

In my opinion, your assessment is extremely unlikely to be the case, Pantheory.

 

 

In the video and in the science paper it is estimated that 50 to 80% of the galaxies studied were of the 'breadstick' type.  That's an AWFUL lot of spirals that are aligned to us, not exactly edge on.  Far, far too many when you consider that 50 to 80% them in the distant universe would have to align themselves like this with respect to us, so that we can see them at this particular, not exactly edge on, orientation.  If that were the case then we occupy are highly privileged position in the universe.  Which is totally at odds with the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle.

 

Copernican principle - Wikipedia

Cosmological principle - Wikipedia

 

 

But the estimated prevalence of these breadstick galaxies points to another aspect of modern cosmology that you can't accept.  Dark matter.  In the video Viraj Pandya describes the very long filaments of dark matter in the cosmic web and points out that elongated objects like these breadstick galaxies are just what you would expect to find there.  The earliest proto-galaxies would be elongated like breadsticks because the filaments of dark matter which help them form are themselves highly elongated.

 

 

You say, "From the pictures in your link..."  Yes, that's exactly why I find your assessment very dubious.

 

I find the assessment of Pandya and his colleagues much more persuasive than yours, precisely because they actually made all the observations, reduced all the data and analysed all of it and you did none of those things.   In whom should I place my trust if I want a new pair of glasses?  An unqualified amateur or a qualified and accredited optometrist who has done all the necessary work?  For that matter Pantheory, who would YOU go to?  I'd lay good money that you'd put your trust in the latter, not the former.

 

[pantheory]

On 5/31/2024 at 4:00 PM, walterpthefirst said:

In my opinion, your assessment is extremely unlikely to be the case, Pantheory.

 

 

In the video and in the science paper it is estimated that 50 to 80% of the galaxies studied were of the 'breadstick' type.  That's an AWFUL lot of spirals that are aligned to us, not exactly edge on.  Far, far too many when you consider that 50 to 80% them in the distant universe would have to align themselves like this with respect to us, so that we can see them at this particular, not exactly edge on, orientation.  If that were the case then we occupy are highly privileged position in the universe.  Which is totally at odds with the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle.

 

Copernican principle - Wikipedia

Cosmological principle - Wikipedia

 

 

But the estimated prevalence of these breadstick galaxies points to another aspect of modern cosmology that you can't accept.  Dark matter.  In the video Viraj Pandya describes the very long filaments of dark matter in the cosmic web and points out that elongated objects like these breadstick galaxies are just what you would expect to find there.  The earliest proto-galaxies would be elongated like breadsticks because the filaments of dark matter which help them form are themselves highly elongated.

 

 

You say, "From the pictures in your link..."  Yes, that's exactly why I find your assessment very dubious.

 

I find the assessment of Pandya and his colleagues much more persuasive than yours, precisely because they actually made all the observations, reduced all the data and analysed all of it and you did none of those things.   In whom should I place my trust if I want a new pair of glasses?  An unqualified amateur or a qualified and accredited optometrist who has done all the necessary work?  For that matter Pantheory, who would YOU go to?  I'd lay good money that you'd put your trust in the latter, not the former.

 

 

Yes, only a few theorists and astronomers in the world believe what I years ago explained to you, because only a few hundred in the world have read my related published papers, and unless one can understand the mathematics they could not understand my work, evidence and proofs.  So there is no reason for you to take my understandings of cosmology as being better than theirs, I agree.

 

https://ej-physics.org/index.php/ejphysics/article/view/167

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Yes, only a few theorists and astronomers in the world believe what I years ago explained to you, because only a few hundred in the world have read my related published papers, and unless one can understand the mathematics they could not understand my work, evidence and proofs.  So there is no reason for you to take my understandings of cosmology as being better than theirs, I agree.

 

https://ej-physics.org/index.php/ejphysics/article/view/167

 

 

 

And let's not forget the Achilles Heel in your entire approach to science, Pantheory.

 

Your belief that any scientific explanation that doesn't meet your criteria of logic and clarity must therefore be flawed and wrong.

 

Despite asking you for a reason why these things must conform to your understanding, you've yet to give me a reasonable answer.

 

For that reason alone I find your work, your assertions, your condemnation of other scientists and your motivation to be highly suspect.

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

And let's not forget the Achilles Heel in your entire approach to science, Pantheory.

 

Your belief that any scientific explanation that doesn't meet your criteria of logic and clarity must therefore be flawed and wrong.

 

Despite asking you for a reason why these things must conform to your understanding, you've yet to give me a reasonable answer.

 

For that reason alone I find your work, your assertions, your condemnation of other scientists and your motivation to be highly suspect.

 

As to "condemnation, I never use that word in the context of science. I have sometimes said misguided via GroupThink or otherwise, concerning science. As to not getting the evidence, or sometimes the "proof," some get the discernible, comprehensible version of it and others do not. As to evidence, theories, beliefs, and credibility are concerned, everyone is free to have their own opinions without the need or compulsion to explain it or why they have it. One's opinions may be correct, but their reasoning can eventually be proven wrong, the same as their asserted opinions and conclusions.

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

As to "condemnation, I never use that word in the context of science. I have sometimes said misguided via GroupThink or otherwise, concerning science. As to not getting the evidence, or sometimes the "proof," some get the discernible, comprehensible version of it and others do not. As to evidence, theories, beliefs, and credibility are concerned, everyone is free to have their own opinions without the need or compulsion to explain it or why they have it. One's opinions may be correct, but their reasoning can eventually be proven wrong, the same as their asserted opinions and conclusions.

 

True.  You never openly use the word 'condemnation', Pantheory.

 

But when you, after spending less than twelve hours looking at just a few images, conclude that the breadstick galaxies in question are actually spiral galaxies viewed not exactly edge on, you are, in effect, condemning these scientists of gross incompetence.  

 

Especially when you consider that they have access to a mountain of data and you have seen just a few images.

 

The vast disparity between what they have observed, analysed and calculated and what you have briefly glanced at, the years they spent doing the hard work before publishing and the few hours you took to reach your conclusion, tell their own story.

 

Yes, you would never openly use the condemnation.

 

But something need not be openly mentioned for it to nevertheless be present.

 

And sometimes, what is unsaid speaks louder than what is openly said. 

 

 

[pantheory]

James Webb observations, Penn State, 6/28/24, article source Penn State

 

Maybe the furthest galaxies, and maybe the most massive, discovered to date.

 

 

"Tiny bright (very red) objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists"

 

 

"Their analysis found signatures of "old" stars, hundreds of millions of years old, far older than expected in a young universe.

The researchers said they were also surprised to discover signatures of huge supermassive black holes in the same objects, estimating that they are 100 to 1,000 times more massive than the supermassive black hole in our own Milky Way. Neither of these are expected in current models of galaxy growth and supermassive black hole formation, which expect galaxies and their black holes to grow together over billions of years of cosmic history."

 

 

"We have confirmed that these appear to be packed with ancient stars -- hundreds of millions of years old -- in a universe that is only 600-800 million years old. Remarkably, these objects hold the record for the earliest signatures of old starlight," said Bingjie Wang, a postdoctoral scholar at Penn State and lead author on the paper. "It was totally unexpected to find old stars in a very young universe. The standard models of cosmology and galaxy formation have been incredibly successful, yet, these luminous objects do not quite fit comfortably into those theories."

 

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/06/240628125241.htm

[walterpthefirst]

You're doing it again, Pantheory.    Tut!  Tut!  (Wags finger.)

 

 

From the article...

 

The researchers were also perplexed by the incredibly small sizes of these systems, only a few hundred light years across, roughly 1,000 times smaller than our own Milky Way. The stars are approximately as numerous as in our own Milky Way galaxy -- with somewhere between 10 billion and 1 trillion stars -- but contained within a volume 1,000 times smaller than the Milky Way.

 

 

So, rather than being extremely distant examples of the massive, highly evolved galaxies that we have in the local universe, these are a thousand times smaller in size than local galaxies like the Milky Way.  Therefore, even if our current models of galaxy formation struggle to account for them, they are totally unlike anything in the local universe.  And so this data in no way suggests that the universe is very much older than the mainstream model, the LCDM. 

 

A galaxies mass and its size are two very different properties and no bona fide scientist should conflate, exchange, swap or confuse these two properties, claiming that a high mass is the same as a large size.

 

The title of the article...

 

 

Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

You're doing it again, Pantheory.    Tut!  Tut!  (Wags finger.)

 

 

From the article...

 

The researchers were also perplexed by the incredibly small sizes of these systems, only a few hundred light years across, roughly 1,000 times smaller than our own Milky Way. The stars are approximately as numerous as in our own Milky Way galaxy -- with somewhere between 10 billion and 1 trillion stars -- but contained within a volume 1,000 times smaller than the Milky Way.

 

 

So, rather than being extremely distant examples of the massive, highly evolved galaxies that we have in the local universe, these are a thousand times smaller in size than local galaxies like the Milky Way.  Therefore, even if our current models of galaxy formation struggle to account for them, they are totally unlike anything in the local universe.  And so this data in no way suggests that the universe is very much older than the mainstream model, the LCDM. 

 

A galaxies mass and its size are two very different properties and no bona fide scientist should conflate, exchange, swap or confuse these two properties, claiming that a high mass is the same as a large size.

 

The title of the article...

 

 

Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[pantheory]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

You're doing it again, Pantheory.    Tut!  Tut!  (Wags finger.)

 

 

From the article...

 

The researchers were also perplexed by the incredibly small sizes of these systems, only a few hundred light years across, roughly 1,000 times smaller than our own Milky Way. The stars are approximately as numerous as in our own Milky Way galaxy -- with somewhere between 10 billion and 1 trillion stars -- but contained within a volume 1,000 times smaller than the Milky Way.

 

 

So, rather than being extremely distant examples of the massive, highly evolved galaxies that we have in the local universe, these are a thousand times smaller in size than local galaxies like the Milky Way.  Therefore, even if our current models of galaxy formation struggle to account for them, they are totally unlike anything in the local universe.  And so this data in no way suggests that the universe is very much older than the mainstream model, the LCDM. 

 

A galaxies mass and its size are two very different properties and no bona fide scientist should conflate, exchange, swap or confuse these two properties, claiming that a high mass is the same as a large size.

 

The title of the article...

 

 

Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

As I explained to you almost countless times before, the Hubble distance  formula is completely wrong at great distances. Can't you remember that I said the universe is far far far older, and that what is being perceived is much farther away. Here again is the correct distance formula which I've explained to you since you've been on this forum -- which I formulated more than 10 years ago, and which has made correct predictions of future observations. which the Hubble distance formula has never never never ever done.

 

There's nothing at all small about these galaxies. They are much much much farther away and some of the largest galaxies of their time, maybe 100 or a thousand times more massive and maybe 5-10 times the diameter of the Milky Way.. Just try to remember what I have been explaining to you ever since you have been here; after that you don't have to believe my almost countless predictions which I have explained,  they speak for themselves.

 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370212804_Solving_the_Many_Well-Known_and_Lesser-Known_Problems_of_Mainstream_Cosmology

 

https://www.pantheory.org/HF.htm

 

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

As I explained to you almost countless times before, the Hubble distance  formula is completely wrong at great distances. Can't you remember that I said the universe is far far far older, and that what is being perceived is much farther away. Here again is the correct distance formula which I've explained to you since you've been on this forum -- which I formulated more than 10 years ago, and which has made correct predictions of future observations. which the Hubble distance formula has never never never ever done.

 

There's nothing at all small about these galaxies. They are much much much farther away and some of the largest galaxies of their time, maybe 100 or a thousand times more massive and maybe 5-10 times the diameter of the Milky Way.. Just try to remember what I have been explaining to you ever since you have been here; after that you don't have to believe my almost countless predictions which I have explained,  they speak for themselves.

 

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370212804_Solving_the_Many_Well-Known_and_Lesser-Known_Problems_of_Mainstream_Cosmology

 

https://www.pantheory.org/HF.htm

 

 

Who said that I was using the context of your alternative theories in my reply?

 

In the context of the article you quoted my comments are entirely valid.  The Penn State scientists who made the observations call these galaxies tiny.

 

"Distinguishing between light from material falling into a black hole and light emitted from stars in these tiny, distant objects is challenging," Wang said.

 

Tiny, Pantheory.  They are tiny.   Not 5 to 10 times the diameter of the Milky Way but a thousand times smaller.  As you can read in the article.

 

The researchers were also perplexed by the incredibly small sizes of these systems, only a few hundred light years across, roughly 1,000 times smaller than our own Milky Way. The stars are approximately as numerous as in our own Milky Way galaxy -- with somewhere between 10 billion and 1 trillion stars -- but contained within a volume 1,000 times smaller than the Milky Way.

 

So you are massively exaggerating what the scientists are actually saying.  Whereas I am truthfully reporting what they are actually saying. 

 

 

Now let me ask you a direct question which I strongly insist you give a straight, direct and unmodified answer to.

 

Compared to the size of our Milky Way galaxy, the Penn State scientists who made the observations say that they are how much smaller?

 

Please answer.

[pantheory]

Remember, I explained to you that it will take them maybe 3-4 years to figure it out, even after everything they are observing is different from what they expected and predicted.  I'm explaining it to you again that these galaxies are the exact opposite of tiny, they are huge. They appear tiny to astronomers because they are using the wrong distance formula, the Hubble formula, to calculate distances. I gave you the link to my own published distance formula, derived more than 10 years ago. For instance if distances are actually 4 times farther away than they calculate, their diameters would be 16 times greater in size. This is what I have known for more than 50 years concerning the problems they were going to have if they ever could look this far. Simply spoken, mainstream cosmology theory is simply wrong in almost every way, so much or most of what they observe could, or will be misinterpreted.

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=7ONCj-kAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=7ONCj-kAAAAJ:Tyk-4Ss8FVUC

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=7ONCj-kAAAAJ:IjCSPb-OGe4C

 

Of course it is an alternative to mainstream theory, so you don’t have to consider it.

But when all of my predictions come true, and none of their predictions are observed, you should consider what I’ve been explaining to you now for years – and what I have known for more than 50 years: Mainstream theory is wrong, no dark matter, no dark energy, no Inflation. They are all ad hoc hypotheses, added to a wrong theory in the first place IMHO. In my opinion some are already starting to figure it out, that the universe is far older, and that the Hubble distance formula is wrong.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

36 minutes ago, pantheory said:

Remember, I explained to you that it will take them maybe 3-4 years to figure it out, even after everything they are observing is different from what they expected and predicted.  I'm explaining it to you again that these galaxies are the exact opposite of tiny, they are huge. They appear tiny to astronomers because they are using the wrong distance formula, the Hubble formula, to calculate distances. I gave you the link to my own published distance formula, derived more than 10 years ago. For instance if distances are actually 4 times farther away than they calculate, their diameters would be 16 times greater in size. This is what I have known for more than 50 years concerning the problems they were going to have if they ever could look this far. Simply spoken, mainstream cosmology theory is simply wrong in almost every way, so much or most of what they observe could, or will be misinterpreted.

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=7ONCj-kAAAAJ:u5HHmVD_uO8C

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=7ONCj-kAAAAJ:Tyk-4Ss8FVUC

https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=view_citation&hl=en&user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&citation_for_view=7ONCj-kAAAAJ:IjCSPb-OGe4C

 

Of course it is an alternative to mainstream theory, so you don’t have to consider it.

But when all of my predictions come true, and none of their predictions are observed, you should consider what I’ve been explaining to you now for years – and what I have known for more than 50 years: Mainstream theory is wrong, no dark matter, no dark energy, no Inflation. They are all ad hoc hypotheses, added to a wrong theory in the first place IMHO. In my opinion some are already starting to figure it out, that the universe is far older, and that the Hubble distance formula is wrong.

 

 

I don't care about any of that, Pantheory.

 

Now, please answer the simple question I put to you 6 hours ago.

 

Here it is again.

 

 

Compared to the size of our Milky Way galaxy, the Penn State scientists who made the observations say that they are how much smaller?

 

 

Please answer.

[pantheory]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I don't care about any of that, Pantheory.

 

Now, please answer the simple question I put to you 6 hours ago.

 

Here it is again.

 

 

Compared to the size of our Milky Way galaxy, the Penn State scientists who made the observations say that they are how much smaller?

 

 

Please answer.

They said that these tiny bright galaxies are 1000th the volume, which mean that they are 1/10th the diameter of the Milky Way. This fits nicely with what I explained to you before -- that distance cannot be correctly calculated with the wrong distance formula. they also could be looking at Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) which are brighter than normal galaxies and are the basis for quasars. At such great distances I believe only the largest galaxies would be observable.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, pantheory said:

They said that these tiny bright galaxies are 1000th the volume, which mean that they are 1/10th the diameter of the Milky Way. 

 

Thank you.