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]]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

KOn Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 15:04:18 UTC+1, Lou wrote:

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]]

Interesting contortion of logic here from the moderator. Because
erroneously the moderator is pretending that a non expanding model predicts *no temp difference* of the CMBR over distance!!
( Tell me something moderator...based on which published research did you come to
the conclusion that a non expanding model couldn’t predict a temp difference of the CMBR?)

Looking at the conclusion section of one of the papers you cite (3), I notice the supporters of the BBT suggest that the temp of the CMBR increases with increased redshift. In other words presumably they are saying that in an earlier
Big Bang universe where there was less expansion the CMBR would be hotter.
And therefore also supposedly disproving any non expanding model. (?)
However as usual from BB theorists this ignores what a non expanding CMBR
would also predict at earlier redshifts.
Because in a non expanding model redshift of the CMBR is said to be,
by some theorists at least, a galaxies black body spectrum from great cosmological distances redshifted from the optical spectrum to
the microwave region. And using the inverse relationship over distance then it’s also true that energy , luminosity and *temp* of a redshifted CMBR would also reduce over distance in a non expanding universe. After all unlike the BBT the non expanding model DOES like to,stick to,the accepted laws of physics.
Seems to me that the authors of the paper have not only just proven
that a Big Bang model can be verified using their analysis. But that they also have concluded thatbnon expanding model is also verified by their analysis.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

JOn Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 15:07:06 UTC+1, Phil H wrote:

KOn Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 15:04:18 UTC+1, Lou wrote:

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]]

Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.astro.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it contains false statements. 
In particular:

Interesting contortion of logic here from the moderator. Because
erroneously the moderator is pretending that a non expanding model predicts *no temp difference* of the CMBR over distance!!
( Tell me something moderator...based on which published research did you come to
the conclusion that a non expanding model couldn’t predict a temp difference
of the CMBR?)

Looking at the conclusion section of one of the papers you cite (3), I notice
the supporters of the BBT suggest that the temp of the CMBR increases with increased redshift. In other words presumably they are saying that in an earlier
Big Bang universe where there was less expansion the CMBR would be hotter. And therefore also supposedly disproving any non expanding model. (?) However as usual from BB theorists this ignores what a non expanding CMBR would also predict at earlier redshifts.

Even assuming that the CMB could originate from galactic light (an idea
long since debunked), the usual idea is that it is REPROCESSED to the microwave region (e.g. absorbed and re-emitted by dust), not that it is REDSHIFTED.  After all, such non-big-bang models typically don't have a cosmological redshift.

Because in a non expanding model redshift of the CMBR is said to be,
by some theorists at least, a galaxies black body spectrum from great cosmological distances redshifted from the optical spectrum to
the microwave region. And using the inverse relationship over distance then it’s also true that energy , luminosity and *temp* of a redshifted CMBR would
also reduce over distance in a non expanding universe.

You are probably thinking that objects further away are fainter.  Yes. 

Luminosity, as usually defined, is an intrinsic quantity, but maybe you
mean apparent luminosity.  OK.  In some sense the received energy is
less, of course.  But the temperature is measured from the peak in the spectrum, which doesn't change just because an object is further away;
it changes only if there is a cosmological redshift. 
Astronomers routinely measure the temperatures of stars, which are visible over a
very wide range of distances.  It is something which can be measured independently of distance.

After all unlike the
BBT the non expanding model DOES like to,stick to,the accepted laws of physics.
Seems to me that the authors of the paper have not only just proven
that a Big Bang model can be verified using their analysis. But that they also
have concluded thatbnon expanding model is also verified by their analysis.

If you are thinking of a specific non-expanding model which has a
cosmological redshift, you need to cite the corresponding paper or
whatever.
Phil H..

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

'On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 15:15:16 UTC+1, Lou wrote:

JOn Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 15:07:06 UTC+1, Phil H wrote:

KOn Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 15:04:18 UTC+1, Lou wrote:

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]]

Unfortunately, the article you posted to sci.astro.research is
inappropriate for the newsgroup because it contains false statements.
In particular:

Interesting contortion of logic here from the moderator. Because erroneously the moderator is pretending that a non expanding model predicts
*no temp difference* of the CMBR over distance!!

False statement? Let me guess Phil. You are now agreeing with me that a non expanding
model DOES predict a temp difference of the CMBR over distance?😂

( Tell me something moderator...based on which published research did you come to
the conclusion that a non expanding model couldn’t predict a temp difference
of the CMBR?)
Looking at the conclusion section of one of the papers you cite (3), I notice
the supporters of the BBT suggest that the temp of the CMBR increases with increased redshift. In other words presumably they are saying that in an earlier
Big Bang universe where there was less expansion the CMBR would be hotter. And therefore also supposedly disproving any non expanding model. (?) However as usual from BB theorists this ignores what a non expanding CMBR would also predict at earlier redshifts.

Even assuming that the CMB could originate from galactic light (an idea
long since debunked),

Supply evidence not lies please Phil. Show us that there is evidence and published papers
proving light from a blackbody emission cannot be redshifted to microwave in a non
expanding universe.

the usual idea is that it is REPROCESSED to the
microwave region (e.g. absorbed and re-emitted by dust), not that it is REDSHIFTED. After all, such non-big-bang models typically don't have a cosmological redshift.

A non expanding model “don’t have a redshift” ? 😂😂😂😂
Nonsense and fantasy from from a BB supporter desperate to pretend
without evidence that light doesn’t redshift in a non expanding universe.
You forget Phil that Hubble proved light changes frequency over distance
in a non expanding universe. It was the Einstein worshippers who were so desperate to not admit this observation falsified Einsteins claims about
how photons cannot change frequency over distance,...that they invented a
whole new field of wacko unverified physics called the Big Bang. To try
to cover up the fact that the photon model had just been refuted.

Because in a non expanding model redshift of the CMBR is said to be,
by some theorists at least, a galaxies black body spectrum from great cosmological distances redshifted from the optical spectrum to
the microwave region. And using the inverse relationship over distance then
it’s also true that energy , luminosity and *temp* of a redshifted CMBR would
also reduce over distance in a non expanding universe.

You are probably thinking that objects further away are fainter. Yes.

No, I am assuming that in a non expanding universe the blackbody
radiation that has left the source and travelled only part way to us on earth is at a higher temp than that radiation which has travelled farther to
us here on earth.
Because of the inverse relationship. That is unless you can prove that
a heat source temp doesn’t obey the inverse square relationship over distance.

Luminosity, as usually defined, is an intrinsic quantity, but maybe you
mean apparent luminosity. OK. In some sense the received energy is
less, of course. But the temperature is measured from the peak in the spectrum, which doesn't change just because an object is further away;

Pure gobbledegook. I was saying that the peak of the emitted blackbody
spectrum will have a higher temp the closer it is to the source. And so far your cited papers confirm this is true. Not surprising considering it is
a well established fact that a heat source will measure as being cooler
the farther away one is measuring the heat from a source.

it changes only if there is a cosmological redshift.
Astronomers routinely measure the temperatures of stars, which are visible over a
very wide range of distances. It is something which can be measured independently of distance.

After all unlike the
BBT the non expanding model DOES like to,stick to,the accepted laws of physics.
Seems to me that the authors of the paper have not only just proven
that a Big Bang model can be verified using their analysis. But that they also
have concluded thatbnon expanding model is also verified by their analysis.

If you are thinking of a specific non-expanding model which has a cosmological redshift, you need to cite the corresponding paper or
whatever.
Phil H..

Yes Phil...I’ll do that when you supply your fantasy paper or fantasy evidence that proves
that the CMBR cannot be from Blackbody radiation of distant sources redshifted to
microwave in a non expanding model .

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)