Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Assertedly, first galaxies of universe


pantheory

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 🤔

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

INACTIVE - Bread Sticks, WG, RS, Brown and Serve, Pan Baked, 7" (#4057)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

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

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

  • Sad 1
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.