See the Oldest View of Our Known Universe, Just Revealed by the James Webb Space Telescope

[Internetado]

Decades of work, $10 billion in spending and nearly 14 billion years of
cosmic history have brought us to this moment: the first science from
the largest and most powerful observatory ever built.

Lee Billings: This is the picture we've all been waiting for the
deepest image of the cosmos ever captured. Humanity has never seen so
far back and so clearly into the depths of the universe's history. The
multitudes of nameless galaxies you see here emitted their light more
than 13 billion years ago, mere cosmic moments after the Big Bang. This
one image and the countless others that come has been the result of
more than two decades of focused efforts by some of the world's
greatest scientists and engineers.
(continue)...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/video/see-the-oldest-view-of-our-known-universe-just-revealed-by-the-james-webb-space-telescope/
--
Internetado
Brasil <-- Portugal

[Lou]

When will the BB theorists admit their theory keeps on being ruled out by observations.
A few decades ago Gamow said the temp of the CMBR was 15K Eventually it was
measured as 3.8
Then BBT supporters told us the universe was 3.8 billion years old. That prediction failed
and as recently as 1990 the BB was supposed to be up to 20 Billion years old . Total nonsense
of course as that prediction failed. Currently the BBT is not supposed to allow luminous
metal rich oldest galaxies in the “ early epoch” . Yet as even the very first JWST
data shows...this prediction has failed. As the first preprint paper to be released on arxiv
by Rohan Naidu et al and the following quote shows.( The “trend” in the following quote
refers to predictions by the that there should be very few if any old bright large
metal rich galaxies 😂)

“ However, the handful of bright galaxies that have been
found at z ∼ 10 − 13 to date appear to oppose this trend. It is still unclear what the
physical reason for this might be. Evidence is mounting that the star-formation
efficiency in the early Universe may be very high in a few sources, (😂) thus resulting
in the early appearance of UV-luminous galaxies with stellar masses as high as
109 M⊙ already a few hundred Myr after the Big Bang. Wider area datasets will
be required to increase the search volume,”

In other words the universe isn’t expanding, and there are old metal rich galaxies
where the BBT predicts none.
Unfortunately as Naidu et al show. They just won’t give up on their BBT fantasy
and to cover the consistent failings of the BBT they say:
“Well the theory ain’t wrong...it must be a new form of gravity in the early
universe caused by little magical Albert type Gremlins”

[Lou]

Interesting to see Jacob Navia posting to the precopernican moderated
sci.Astro.research the *day after* my post above with quotes from what looks
like the same paper I quoted from. Obviously I inspired Jacob to try to
out Helbigner et al as deniers of the latest data.
Which show exactly what Phil and the rest of the BBT fanatics do not want
to hear. Which is that all the data from JWST so far rules out ANY Big Bang.
Sadly moderator Phil, desperately making up a nonsense reply to Jacobs
points, was pathetic. Phil tries to pretend the ‘Lyman break’ somehow proves
that the rest of the JWST data can be ignored 😂😂
That is Phil desperately wants to ignore JWST DATA showing mature metal
rich galaxies at too early an epoch allowed by the nutty BBT.
AMEN phil.