On Sunday, 21 August 2022 at 07:42:04 UTC+1,
jacob...@gmail.com wrote:
> [[Mod. note -- I'm sorry for the delay in processing this article, which
> reached the moderation system on 2021-08-18. -- jt]]
[[Mod. note -- I'm sorry for the delay in processing this article, which
> reached the moderation system on 2021-08-18. -- jt]]
>
>
https://www.science.org/content/article/webb-telescope-reveals-unpredicted-bounty-bright-galaxies-early-universe
>
> <quote>
> The James Webb Space Telescope has only been watching the sky for a few
> weeks, and it has already delivered a startling finding: tens, hundreds,
> maybe even 1000 times more bright galaxies in the early universe than
> astronomers anticipated.
>
> ...
>
> Within days after Webb began observations, it spotted a candidate galaxy
> that appears to have been shining brightly when the universe was just 230
> million years old, 1.7% of its current age, which would make it the most
> distant ever seen. Surveys since then have shown that object is just one of
> a stunning profusion of early galaxies, each small by today=E2=80=99s
> standards, but more luminous than astronomers had expected.
>
> ...
> something may be wrong in the current understanding of how the universe
> evolves
> </quote>
>
> Well, this confirms what I have been thinking all the time since several
> years. Maybe there is no "Big Bang" but a gargantuan gas cloud that started
> to condense into galaxies 16, or 17 Gy ago.
>
> Or maybe not, since we see the brightest ones at those enormous distances,
> it is normal that we see the bright and younger ones. JWST has started
> observing a few weeks ago. Maybe we will find old galaxies at100 My after
> the supposed "bang" soon. The current record holder that I mentioned in
> this group was at 230 My and it is but one of " a stunning profusion of
> early galaxies," See "On the stunning abundance of super-early, massive
> galaxies revealed by JWST"
https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.00720
>
> VERY interesting times.
>
> jacob
>
> [[Mod. note -- These are indeed exciting times to be an astronomer.
>
> However, I think your hypothesis
> > Maybe there is no "Big Bang" but a gargantuan gas cloud that started
> > to condense into galaxies 16, or 17 Gy ago.
> is falsified by the observation that the cosmic microwave temperature
> was higher at high redshifts than it is today. A few references for
> these observations are
> (1) Srianand, Petitjean & Ledoux, Nature 408, 931 (2000),
> "The cosmic microwave background radiation temperature at
> a redshift of 2.34";
> (2) Ge et al., Astrophysical Journal 474 (1997) 67,
> astro-ph/9607145);
> (3) Noterdaeme et al,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3164,
> accepted for publication in Astronomy & Astrophysics Letters;
> (4) Sato et al,
http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.5625,
> accepted for publication in Astrophysical Journal Letters.
>
> That is, if we observe a galaxy at redshift 2.34 (say), and we know
> that the CMB temperature there at the time we observe that galaxy
> was significantly different from (larger than) today's 2.73 K, that
> implies that we can't explain cosmological redshifts by a simple
> expansion in a flat unchanging space -- there must have been an overall
> expansion of space in ordre to redshift that higher temperature down
> to today's 2.73 K.
> -- jt]]