Let's not talk about the Big Bang

[metis]

Bible canon is based on the old Hebrew Scriptures and Not the other way around.

No, only part is.

I find No one has ever said to me the apocryphal books aren't controversial at all with what's in them.

Where's your source for that? Have you read all of them?

Whereas, Sirach 25:23,12 places the blame on Eve as sin's beginning and because of Eve we die.

Because Eve conned Adam.

BTW, imo, the Fall is allegorical.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

According to the people who are actively looking at the data, the Big Bang is not in question. This is all happening well after the time when the background radiation is formed.

This is closer to asking how life arose on Earth as opposed to how the Earth itself formed. The events of the formation of the Earth are well after those of the beginning of life, while they give the basic conditions for the beginning of life, they aren't affected much by changes in our theories of such.

You are just parroting BB theoretical belief, there is still much to resolve and more to learn, closed minds are more of a hinderance than a help.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Limited, yes, definitely. Wrong, not so much.

For example, there is nothing that would affect our conclusion that the Earth orbits the sun. There is nothing that would induce a re-ordering of the periodic table. There is nothing that would affect the basic statement that life evolves. And there is nothing that would affect the basic statement that the universe has been expanding from a much hotter, denser condition for the last 13 billion years or so.

Understanding aspects of the whole does not equate with understanding the whole.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not sure why you put the stuff you did in bold. They chose that spot in the sky *because* it was previously 'blank', so that the improved capabilities of JWST could be clearly distinguished.

Did they *expect* to see galaxies there? Absolutely. Did they expect to find galaxies of the size they did? No.

One aspect that I have not seen addressed (and I have not read the research papers) is that galaxies at this distance are magnified because of the expansion between then and now. This is a known effect, but I wonder how much it plays into the estimates of the size of these galaxies. It may be that it doesn't at all (if they are actually measuring mass), but I don't know. It may also be difficult to estimate the magnitude of this effect.

Angular Diameter Turnaround

I do not get that these distant galaxies are magnified because of the expansion between then and now?
In what way are they magnified?
Read the article, one of the galaxies was measured as having about 100,000,000,000 times the mass of our star.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not sure why you put the stuff you did in bold. They chose that spot in the sky *because* it was previously 'blank', so that the improved capabilities of JWST could be clearly distinguished.

Exactly, so these 100 billion times larger mass than our sun galaxies are older than the younger galaxies seen with the Hubble ST, which younger galaxies naturally also appear with the JWST.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No, only part is.
Where's your source for that? Have you read all of them?
Because Eve conned Adam. ...................

I was not clear enough when I said the old Hebrew Scriptures because the Christian Scriptures are based on the old.
Jesus expounded and explained the Hebrew Scriptures for us.
I told you the source is the apocryphal book of Sirach located after the apocryphal book of Wisdom and before Isaiah.
If you read Ecclesiasticus chapter 25 of Sirach (page 794 Douay Bible) you can see the contradiction with Romans 5
In Adam all had sinned verses 12-14 Eve is Not blamed because Adam did Not have to listen to Eve.
Seems to me you have Not read Ecclesiasticus Sirach ___________ What Bible are you using _________
Plus, I notice you chose not to answer my question regarding Sirach 24:9 please reply ______________

 

[Polymath257]

Exactly, so these 100 billion times larger mass than our sun galaxies are older than the younger galaxies seen with the Hubble ST, which younger galaxies naturally also appear with the JWST.

No, I was talking about older, smaller galaxies also found by JWST.

Yes, the subject of galaxy formation is in flux right now.

THAT IS A GOOD THING.

We have actual data to work with. We have been able to show that many previous models are wrong. That allows us to formulate new models that are more accurate.

 

[Polymath257]

You are just parroting BB theoretical belief, there is still much to resolve and more to learn, closed minds are more of a hinderance than a help.

No, I am relaying the views of those who actually study the data that we just got from JWST.

The Big Bang is NOT in danger. Many models of galaxy formation are.

 

[Polymath257]

I do not get that these distant galaxies are magnified because of the expansion between then and now?
In what way are they magnified?
Read the article, one of the galaxies was measured as having about 100,000,000,000 times the mass of our star.

What I am not clear about is whether they actually measured the mass or they measured the angular size.

Measuring the mass is tricky because you need to have some sort of gravitational effects to do it. I doubt that such are present and have been measured.

Measuring via angular size is tricky because there is a relativistic magnification effect that affects more distant galaxies more. In essence, the same size galaxy will, if older, *look* larger in the sky because of this effect. I wonder how they accounted for this in detail.

100 billion solar masses is a pretty typical modern galaxy, about half the size of our own. We know of modern galaxies much larger than this: well over a trillion solar masses.

What is surprising is that a galaxy of that size existed so early in the universe. It suggests a top-down formation of galaxies, but the existence of those early stars suggests a bottom-up formation.

I suspect there will be a LOT of poring over this data and a LOT of simulations to figure out what is going on.

But, again, this is 500 million years after the beginning of the expansion. The CMBR formed about 300 thousand years after, and nucleosynthesis was in the first few minutes. Those aspects of the BB model are not touched by this data. Neither are the data and conclusions about the rates of expansion before, through, and since that time.

What *is* affected is questions about the size of density fluctuations in the early universe. But those were not well constrained by previous data. What *is* affected is questions about how matter condensed to form the first stars and galaxies.

But again, we *knew* that many aspects of galaxy formation were only vaguely understood before this. It is a hard computational problem even if you have a good model. This data will help to winnow out the models and probably inspire some new ones.

This is how science works.

 

[Polymath257]

I do not get that these distant galaxies are magnified because of the expansion between then and now?
In what way are they magnified?
Read the article, one of the galaxies was measured as having about 100,000,000,000 times the mass of our star.

OK, let's read the original article, OK? Here it is:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2211.05792.pdf

Here's the conclusion from that paper:

"We explore several potential explanations for these unexpected results. While not the most exciting, significant sample contamination cannot be conclusively ruled
out. These data represent our first foray into a new cosmic epoch, and spectroscopic confirmation of the red-
shifts to at least a subset of these ultra-high-redshift
sources are necessary to gain confidence in our sample
selection processes. However, such data will begin to
flow soon, with CEERS scheduled to spectroscopically
observe ∼10 of these sources in late 2022 (though these
high redshifts may necessitate longer exposure times for
future cycle programs).
Should these high abundances of z = 9–13 galaxies
be confirmed, we explore what possible changes in the
models could bring their predictions into agreement with
observations. One very exciting possibility is that we are
beginning to probe an era where star-formation in galax-
ies is dominated by a top-heavy IMF due to the pres-
ence of very low metallicities, which could increase the
ratio of UV luminosity per unit halo mass. "

Here are a few other papers based on JWST data:

Search | arXiv e-print repository

Have fun!

 

[metis]

I was not clear enough when I said the old Hebrew Scriptures because the Christian Scriptures are based on the old.
Jesus expounded and explained the Hebrew Scriptures for us.
I told you the source is the apocryphal book of Sirach located after the apocryphal book of Wisdom and before Isaiah.
If you read Ecclesiasticus chapter 25 of Sirach (page 794 Douay Bible) you can see the contradiction with Romans 5
In Adam all had sinned verses 12-14 Eve is Not blamed because Adam did Not have to listen to Eve.
Seems to me you have Not read Ecclesiasticus Sirach ___________ What Bible are you using _________
Plus, I notice you chose not to answer my question regarding Sirach 24:9 please reply ______________

You're splitting hairs; thus, I'm just moving on as we well can read in Genesis how Eve fits into the picture with the Fall.

 

[Polymath257]

I am only quoting the author, so why don't you take it up with Joel Leja, assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State, who modeled light from these galaxies, he is the one who explained that the galaxies the team discovered are so massive that they are in conflict with 99% of models for cosmology.

Here are a few of Leja's papers. Care to point out where he challenges the Big Bang cosmology as opposed to models of galaxy formation?

Search | arXiv e-print repository

Good luck.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I was talking about older, smaller galaxies also found by JWST.

Yes, the subject of galaxy formation is in flux right now.

THAT IS A GOOD THING.

We have actual data to work with. We have been able to show that many previous models are wrong. That allows us to formulate new models that are more accurate.

Yes, and that's my point too, the more new data we get, the better the models. Whether the new models are accurate will be ultimately determined by even newer data, and so on. I am not challenging the BB theory directly, but imho, the truth of existence is presently beyond apprehension of contemporary science due to lack of sufficient data. I am eternally patient though.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I am relaying the views of those who actually study the data that we just got from JWST.

The Big Bang is NOT in danger. Many models of galaxy formation are.

^ See my last response.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, and that's my point too, the more new data we get, the better the models. Whether the new models are accurate will be ultimately determined by even newer data, and so on. I am not challenging the BB theory directly, but imho, the truth of existence is presently beyond apprehension of contemporary science due to lack of sufficient data. I am eternally patient though.

You are still conflating two separate events.

 

[Subduction Zone]

^ See my last response.

See my last response.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Here are a few of Leja's papers. Care to point out where he challenges the Big Bang cosmology as opposed to models of galaxy formation?

Search | arXiv e-print repository

Good luck.

Fine, you are explaining to me that when Leja uses the term cosmological models, he means cosmological models that presume the BB model.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are still conflating two separate events.

Oh, in what way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh, in what way?

The Big Bang was the very beginning of the universe. Star, and then galaxy formation occurred long after that. What is being questioned is galaxy formation. This does not put the Big Bang itself into doubt at all.

It appears that you may have been a tad disingenuous in our very first exchange here. I remember you saying something about waiting and here, without any good reason, you appear to be now willing to throw out the Big Bang. Why is that?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The Big Bang was the very beginning of the universe. Star, and then galaxy formation occurred long after that. What is being questioned is galaxy formation. This does not put the Big Bang itself into doubt at all.

It appears that you may have been a tad disingenuous in our very first exchange here. I remember you saying something about waiting and here, without any good reason, you appear to be now willing to throw out the Big Bang. Why is that?

Oh, you did not mention that I was referring to the 99% erroneous cosmological models, and never mentioned BB, you were the first to raise BB. Is the BB a part of cosmology, that is now the question, or are there two cosmologies according to science, BB and Universal?