[Moderator's note: Quoted text trimmed. -J.T.]
On Friday, 4 February 2022 at 05:42:15 UTC, Jacob wrote:
> 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.
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)
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.