What will JWST see?

[Jacob Navia]

Science advances by testing your ideas against reality. This means,
if you have some ideas, make a prediction. If it works, your ideas
are maybe right. If it doesn't they are wrong.

OK

I have been arguing in this group for several years now, that there
is no big bang and the universe goes on forever. I have presented
some hints at that based on some observations: galaxies 400 Million
years after the supposed bang, old galaxies at 700 million years,
and so on. If you google with my name and the name of this group
you will find all my posts.

A star that was older than the universe that was later "reexamined"
to fit into the current theory.

Anyway, if there was no big bang, JWST will see... nothing special.
More and more galaxies, as it be able to see. It will NOT see any
"dark ages", nor it will see any "first stars" etc. Just more of
the same: more galaxies, more spirals, ellipticals, etc. And they
will go on as far as JWST will be able to see. There will be no
limit, no change.

We are now 6 months away from a confirmation that the big bang never
happened.

jacob

P.S. I am not astronomer and I am not seeking any personal gain. I
have a Master's degree in Microbiology and Biochemistry, so I am a
complete unknown in this field. And NO I do NOT have any theory
about the universe to propose you, and I will never have one. I am
just telling you that the big bang didn't happen, that's all.

[Lou]

[Moderator's note: Quoted text trimmed. -J.T.]

On Friday, 4 February 2022 at 05:42:15 UTC, Jacob wrote:
[[snip]]

> Anyway, if there was no big bang, JWST will see... nothing special.
> More and more galaxies, as it be able to see. It will NOT see any
> "dark ages", nor it will see any "first stars" etc. Just more of
> the same: more galaxies, more spirals, ellipticals, etc. And they
> will go on as far as JWST will be able to see. There will be no
> limit, no change.

[[snip]]

Unfortunately the Big Bang theorists have a trick card up their sleeve.
The farther we look in the universe in a non expanding universe
has a direct correlation between distance and redshift. But not in
the Big Bang. Take these numbers of redshift /distance in the
Big Bang universe.
Age of Universe13.77 BYears
But...in redshift the Big Bang theory has lots of wriggle room
if mature galaxies are still seen at JWST limit of z=15.
Z=1500 =13.74 BLY
Z=20 13.57 Billion Light years
Z=15=13.45BLY ( JWST limit)
z=11=13.39 BLY ( Hubble limit)
z=9=13.2 BLY
z=7=13 BLY
Notice the closer we get to the "beginning" of the universe the farther
you have to look. So with the JWST limit of about z=15 we can see back
to about 250 million years after the universe "began"
But if JWST still sees mature galaxies at z=15 all the theorists have to do
is say " re ionisation started a bit earlier and that means by 250 million
years or z=15, there were already mature galaxies.

[[Mod. note -- Given our (alas) very limited knowledge of reionization,
it is indeed true that a wide range of JWST observatious of high-redshift
objects would be consistent with "standard cosmology" (including the big
bang). The reasons for the big bang theory's overwhelming scientific
acceptance lie elsewhere. See, for example, the cosmic microwave
background's power spectrum.
-- jt]]

[Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)]

In article <4bff7036-e8db-4046...@googlegroups.com>, Lou

<noeltu...@live.co.uk> writes:

> On Friday, 4 February 2022 at 05:42:15 UTC, Jacob wrote:
> [[snip]]
> > Anyway, if there was no big bang, JWST will see... nothing special.
> > More and more galaxies, as it be able to see. It will NOT see any
> > "dark ages", nor it will see any "first stars" etc. Just more of
> > the same: more galaxies, more spirals, ellipticals, etc. And they
> > will go on as far as JWST will be able to see. There will be no
> > limit, no change.
> [[snip]]
>
> Unfortunately the Big Bang theorists have a trick card up their sleeve.
> The farther we look in the universe in a non expanding universe
> has a direct correlation between distance and redshift.

Can you explain the origin of redshift in a non-expanding universe?

> But not in
> the Big Bang. Take these numbers of redshift /distance in the
> Big Bang universe.
> Age of Universe13.77 BYears

The age of the universe is inversely proportional to the Hubble
constant. But the Hubble constant has an uncertainty of at least 6% or
so, so it makes no sense to quote numbers based on it with more
precision.

> [[Mod. note -- Given our (alas) very limited knowledge of reionization,
> it is indeed true that a wide range of JWST observatious of high-redshift
> objects would be consistent with "standard cosmology" (including the big
> bang). The reasons for the big bang theory's overwhelming scientific
> acceptance lie elsewhere. See, for example, the cosmic microwave
> background's power spectrum.
> -- jt]]

Indeed. That is probably the best evidence for standard cosmology. It
was calculated in detail before any features had been seen, and no new
parameters needed to be introduced to explain it. It is also something
which rival theories are not able explain.

[Gary Harnagel]

[[Mod. note -- I apologise for the delay in processing this article,
which arrived in the s.a.r moderation system on 2022-Feb-05, but was
alas mis-classified as spam by A Very Large Internet Company's spam
filters.
-- jt]]

Possibly so, but you'd need a reason why stars still exist. The old
steady-state universe hypothesis of Gold, Bondi and Hoyle had a
reason, but the presence of quasars put a definite fly in that ointment.

If the JWST detects HUGE hydrogen-burning stars near first light, that
will confirm that the universe had a beginning, or, at least the present
epoch of it.